Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P. - Court Judgment

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]
Code Context
                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]
Code Context
                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Rama Rao, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 13
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(f) the Serologist to the Government.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 14
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 15
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 16
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 17
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 18
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 19
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 20
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 21
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 22
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]
Code Context
                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '432251',
			'acts' => '',
			'appealno' => '',
			'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
			'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => '',
			'counseldef' => '',
			'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Rama Rao, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p style="text-align: justify;"> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
			'sub' => 'Criminal',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '432251',
		(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors Vs State of a P - Citation 432251 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '432251',
		'acts' => '',
		'appealno' => '',
		'appellant' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors.',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Kudumula Pratap Reddy and ors. Vs. State of A.P.',
		'casenote' => ' - MAXIMSSections 2(xv) & 3(1) & (3): [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Ghee as a Live Stock product  Held, [Per V.V.S. Rao & N.V. Ramana, JJ -  Majority] Since ages, milk is preserved by souring with aid of lactic cultures. The first of such resultant products developed is curd or yogurt (dahi) obtained by fermenting milk. Dahi when subjected to churning yields butter (makkhan) and buttermilk as by product. The shelf life of dahi is two days whereas that of butter is a week. By simmering unsalted  butter in a pot until all water is boiled, ghee is obtained which has shelf life of more than a year in controlled conditions. Ghee at least as of now is most synthesized, Ghee is a natural product derived ultimately from milk. So to say, milk is converted to dahi, then  butter. Scientifically or common sense point of view, even though ghee is not directly obtained from milk (which is certainly a product of cow/buffalo), it is certainly a product of a product of livestock i.e., cow or buffalo. It would be rather illogical or irrational to say that ghee is not a milk/dairy product or to say that it is not a product of livestock. Section 2(x) and 2(iv) of the Act used the plural products of livestock. The legislative intention is very clear that not only a product of livestock like milk (when notified by Government), butter etc., are products of livestock but even derivative items (derived from a product of livestock) are intended to be product of livestock for the purpose of the Act. Thus the term ghee is to be interpreted on the basis of expression products of livestock as defined in Section 2(xv) of the Act. Whatever products are declared as such by the Government by notification, they become products of livestock for purpose of the Act. Consequently it was held that ghee is the product of livestock and by reason of power conferred under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(3) of the Act on them it is competent for the Government to declare ghee as product of livestock for the purpose of regulating its purchase and sale, in any notified market area. [Per P.S. Narayana, J,(Dissenting)]If livestock or agricultural produce and the categories thereof had been specified in the statute itself by appending in the schedule or otherwise, that would stand on a different footing from the present provisions of the Act which contemplate the issuance of notifications in accordance with the procedure ordained by the provisions specified supra. In view of the clear definition of the livestock and products of livestock, the ghee being derivative of butter or cream, if the language employed in definition to be taken as they stand, the only conclusion would be is that the ghee would not fall within ambit of the definitions aforesaid. 

Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Declaration of notified area  Held, It is only under Section 3 that Government are required to publish draft notification inviting objections and Section 3(3) mandates to consider objections and suggestions before issuing declaration order. It is very conspicuous that Section 4 does not contemplate any draft notification inviting objections and suggestions before either constituting market committee, establishing notified market area or declaring notified market area for the purpose of levy of market fees. Thus, except ordaining Government to issue preliminary/draft notification inviting objections at the time of issuing declaration order under Section 3(3) of the Act nowhere much less under Section 4 contemplates issuing a notification inviting objections. When the legislature has chosen to exclude principles of natural justice, the Court cannot introduce rule of audi alteram partem and render statutory provisions unworkable. In such a case, maxim, Expressum facit cessare tacitum (When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded) would apply. 

Section 7: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Levy of market fee  Element of quid pro quo -  Held, Levying fees and tax are two forms of exercise of Sttaes taxing power. There is no quid pro quo between tax payer and public authority as tax is a part of common burden. It is also well settled that fee is charge for special service or a benefit given to a class of individual fee payers and fee collected need not have correlation with actual service in exactitude but if it is shown that substantial portion  of the fee is expended or the purpose for which it is levied, it would be justified.  

Expressum facit cessare tacitum Sections 4 & 3: [V.V.S. Rao, N.V. Ramana & P.S. Narayana, JJ] Meaning When there is express mention of certain things, then anything not mentioned is excluded.  -  A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. 3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => '',
		'counseldef' => '',
		'court' => 'Andhra Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1984-12-24',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Ramachandra Raju and ;Rama Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Rama Rao, J.</p><p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.</p><p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.</p><p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:</p><p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.</p><p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.</p><p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.</p><p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:</p><p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.</p><p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;</p><p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau</p><p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;</p><p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;</p><p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.</p><p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.</p><p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.</p><p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;</p><p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.</p><p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):</p><p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.</p><p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.</p><p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.</p><p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '1985CriLJ1446',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of A.P.',
		'sub' => 'Criminal',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '432251',
	(int) 1 => 'kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/432251/kudumula-pratap-reddy-ors-vs-state-a-p'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Rama Rao, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. This appeal is at the instance of A-l to A-4. A-l is convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A2 and A3 are convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. A4 is convicted under Section 302 read with Section 109 IPC and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life. Al to A3 are also convicted under Sections 3 and 5 of the Explosive Substances Act and sentenced to suffer three years rigorous imprisonment. A5 who was charge-sheeted under Section 201 IPC was acquitted. All the accused were charge-sheeted for having caused the death of one Rami Reddy of Tummalapalli village on 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon at the house of the deceased in the said village. It is stated that A1 to A3 hurled bombs and A4 armed with spear instigated the accused to attack the deceased. Al to A5 and the deceased and PWs 1 to 5, 7 and 8 belong to the same village. A2 is the uncle of Al, A3 is the 'dayadi' of A2 and A2 and A4 are strong supporters of Al. The prosecution version is that there are acute factions in the village between the father of Al and Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. The deceased is the supporter of Linga Reddy Rami Reddy. In 1964, the parents of Al and his cousin were murdered and at that time, Al was aged 6 years. In connection with the said murder, PW2 and deceased were accused and they were convicted initially and on appeal they were acquitted. Since 1964, Al and the deceased were not on talking terms. On 9-8-1980 at 12.45 noon, when the deceased was sleeping on the cot in his house on the verandah and while PW3, the daughter of the deceased was sitting on a pial of the house, A1 to A3 armed with countrymade bombs and A4 with spear came there and A4 instigated A1 to A3 to attack the deceased. When A2 hurled a bomb, it hit the wall and exploded. A3 also hurled a bomb which hit the flank of the door and it also exploded and Al hurled a bomb Which hit the deceased on the face and caused the death of the deceased. PWs 1 and 2 are living opposite to the house of the deceased and stated to have witnessed the occurrence. It is also stated that PWs.1 and 2 tried to interfere and A4 threatened them not to do so. After the accused left, PWs. 1 and 2 came to the scene and PW. 3 also came out and PWs.1 and 2 informed PW.3 about the details of occurrence. PW.4 also stated that he saw Al to A3 from the house of one Eswaraiah. It is further stated that PW.5 returning from fields, heard the explosion and saw Al to A4 returning in a hurried manner and thereafter he visited the scene of offence and PWs. 1 and 2 explained to him what happened. It is stated by PW.7 that he heard the bomb explosion and he went towards the house of the deceased and found PWs.1 to 3 and others there. When he enquired and as nobody answered, h e went to the house of the Village Munsif (A5) and reported the same. A5 recorded the statement of PW.7 and took his signature. The information was given thereafter and FIR was prepared and the post-mortem was conducted and the inquest also has been conducted.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The learned Sessions Judge relying upon the evidence of PWs.1 to 3, 6 and 7 arrived at the conclusion that the accused committed the offence. The learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there is no proximate motive and the evidence of the prosecution witness is artificial and cannot be relied upon and further the absence of the examination of the doctor and the Deputy Controller of Explosives, South Central, Madras is fatal to the prosecution case. Though, apparently the motive may not be proximate but it cannot be denied that the prolonged and sustained grouse actuated the attack against the deceased. The evidence of PWs 1 to 3 is reliable and the consistent narration of the attack by the accused 1 to 3 by hurling bombs and A4 saying 'veyyandira' discloses that Al instigated and. abetted the crime. Though the evidence of PW2 can be eshewed as he was the accused in the old case but there is no reason to discredit the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. We cannot link the evidence of PWs 5 and 7 to the attack direct as they were informed about the same by PWs 1 and 2. The evidence of PWs 1 and 3 constitute safe and reliable basis for conviction. There is absolutely no reason for PW3, the daughter of the deceased to have stated anything against the accused and her evidence is that she saw the accused coming to the house armed with bombs and also spear and the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 in all material particulars. It is true that the evidence of PW3 corroborates the evidence of PW1 up to the stage of attack only and this substantially contributes to the credence of the evidence of PW1. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in relying on the evidence of PWs 1 and 3. It is also contended by the learned Counsel for the appellants that in any event in so far as A4 is concerned, he did not participate in the attack and no overt act has been attributed to A4 and as such A4 should be given benefit of doubt. But we cannot overlook the consistent version of the prosecution witnesses that A4 armed with spear instigated and abetted the accused by saying 'veyyara' which means 'attack the deceased'. Therefore, A4 is equally guilty along with Al to A3.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. The final contention of the learned Counsel, for the appellants is that the absence of examination of the doctor as well as the Deputy Controller of Explosives is fatal to the prosecution version, as they were material witnesses to be examined with reference to the injuries that might have been caused by the bombs and the culmination of death and further the examination of the doctor is vital to support the post-mortem certificate. Before considering this contention, it is necessary to examine the circumstances in which the learned Sessions Judge did not consider it necessary to examine either the Deputy Controller of Explosives or the doctor. It is stated that the report is submitted by the Deputy Controller of Explosives on the examination of the materials seized from the scene of offence and it is stated that the defence has not taken any exception to mark these documents. It is also stated that the accused admitted that the deceased died due to hurling of bombs. Ex.P16 is the post-mortem report and it has been marked under Section 294 Cr. P.C. as the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in hospital. In inquest report Ex. P2 it is stated that there was a mark of bomb explosion of IV feet level and 1 feet width (north-south) on the said wall at a height of 2 feet from the verandah pial Iron pieces, cloth pieces, papers like and blue colour which fell down as a result of the bomb explosion were below the said mark. As a result of explosion of the bomb, wooden pieces to an extent of 3'' came off from the northern flank of the main door of the house, which is at about a distance of 3 feet on the southern side of the said mark. An W deep hole with yellow colour around it was made. The height of the said pial was one foot, 18 feet long and 8 1/2 feet width. As a result of the bomb explosion, pieces of iron, paper pieces, thread pieces and torn cloth were lying scattered here and there. When the face was cracked, pieces of flesh with blood stains stick here and there on the wall which was on the rear side of the head of the deceased. To appreciate the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants it is necessary to get at Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. which are as follows:',
	(int) 4 => '<p>293.(1) Any document purporting to be a report under the hand of a Govt. scientific expert to whom this section applied, upon any matter or thing duly submitted to him for examination or analysis and report in the course of any proceeding under this code, may be used as evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code.',
	(int) 5 => '<p>(2) The court may, if it thinks fit, summon and examine any such expert as to the subject-matter of his report.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>(3) Where any such expert is summoned by a court and he is unable to attend personally he may, unless the court has expressly directed him to appear personally, depute any responsible officer working with him to attend the court, if such officer is conversant with the facts of the case and can satisfactorily depose in court on his behalf.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>(4) This Section applies to the following Govt. Scientific experts, namely:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>(a) any Chemical Examiner or Asst. Examiner to Govt.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>(b) the Chief Inspector of Explosives;',
	(int) 10 => '<p>(c) the Director of the Finger Print Bureau',
	(int) 11 => '<p>(d) the Director, Haffkeine Institute, Bombay;',
	(int) 12 => '<p>(e) the Director, Deputy Director or Asst. Director of a Central Forensic Science Laboratory or a State Forensic Science Laboratory;',
	(int) 13 => '<p>(f) the Serologist to the Government.',
	(int) 14 => '<p>294.(1) Where any document is filed before any court by the prosecution or the accused, the particulars of every such document shall be included in a list and the prosecution or the accused, as the case may be, or the pleader for the prosecution or the accused, if any, shall be called upon to admit or deny the genuineness of each such document.',
	(int) 15 => '<p> (2) The list of documents shall be in such form as may be prescribed by the State Government.',
	(int) 16 => '<p>(3) Where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document may be read in evidence in any inquiry, trial or other proceeding under this code without proof of the signature of the person by whom it purports to be signed;',
	(int) 17 => '<p>Provided that the court may, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved.',
	(int) 18 => '<p>Section 293 Cr. PC. envisages that the report of a scientific expert can be used as evidence by dispensing with the examination of the concerned expert. Section 294 Cr. PC. postulates that if any document is filed either on behalf of the prosecution or the accused, it shall be considered as evidence without insisting upon the proof of the signature of the person, provided the genuineness of such document is not disputed. The discretion is conferred upon the court as to the necessity of the proof of the signature. In the instant case, the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is used as evidence and it is not considered necessary to summon and examine the expert and the procedure as to reception of the report as evidence is in conformity with Section 293 Cr. P.C. The post-mortem report is taken as evidence as the genuineness of the same is not disputed and this procedure is in consonance with Section 294 Cr. PC. The learned Counsel for the appellants stressed that the documents should not have been admitted as evidence without further proof and relied upon the decision in Jagdeo Singh v. State 1979 Cri LJ 236 wherein it is held that post-mortem report cannot be considered as substantive piece of evidence unless the doctor is examined in court. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court comprising M. Murtaza Hussain and S. C. Mathur, JJ. held as follows (Paras 11 and 12):',
	(int) 19 => '<p>Section 294 is a new provision contained in the Cr. P.C. (of 1974). It provides for the admission in evidence of certain documents without formal proof. It requires each party to produce a list of documents and requires the opposite party to admit or deny the genuineness of all or any of those documents, where the genuineness of any document is not disputed, such document can be read in evidence without proof of the signature of the person by whom, it purports to be signed. The court can, however, in its discretion, require such signature to be proved. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would reveal that it contemplates reading in evidence, upon admission about genuineness by the opposite party, only such documents which, when formally proved, speak for themselves. It does not refer to a document which, even if exhibited, cannot be read in evidence as a substantive piece.',
	(int) 20 => '<p>The notes of post-mortem examination, popularly known as post-mortem examination report, are nothing but a contemporaneous record prepared by a Medical Officer, while performing the post-mortem examination of a dead body. It summarises the salient features observed by the medical man in the course of autopsy on which features he bases his own opinion as to the cause of death. Post-mortem report by itself proves nothing as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. It is only a previous statement of the doctor based on his examination of the dead body. It is the statement of the doctor made in court which alone is the substantive evidence.',
	(int) 21 => '<p>Sections 293 and 294 Cr. P.C. are obviously intended to slim the proceedings by dispensing with elaborate and sometimes long drawn procedure of examining the concerned person when the genuineness of document is not in dispute. To refrain from such procedure is not invariable and the court is empowered to examine depending upon the circumstances and expediency. The report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives is taken as evidence in the absence of any demur and the court did not consider it necessary to examine the expert in view of express consent for reception of the report. Similarly Ex. P16 is admitted as evidence as no exception is taken for reception of the same. Section 294 Cr. P.C. empowers court to admit the document as evidence in the situations embodied in Section 294 Cr. P.C. namely, when no objection is taken as to the admission of the document by either side and when it is not possible to examine the person connected with the document. In the instant case both the requirements have been satisfied as there was no objection for the admission of the document and further the doctor who conducted the post-mortem was laid up in the hospital. The post-mortem certificate clearly discloses that the whole face is disfigured and blasted and four glass pieces were recovered from the injured person and the opinion as to the cause of death was shock and haemorrhage. In the circumstances, the learned Sessions Judge is justified in admitting the report of the Deputy Controller of Explosives and postmortem report as evidence without insisting upon the evidence of expert or doctor. We are unable to subscribe to the view of the Allahabad High Court that the doctor should be examined in all cases and that the reception of documents necessitating formal proof only can be admitted under Section 294 Cr. P.C. The distinction highlighted by the Allahabad High Court is not borned out by Section 294 Cr. P.C. and the documents satisfying requirements in Section 294 Cr. P.C. can be admitted as evidence.',
	(int) 22 => '<p>4. In the result, the convictions and sentences as against Al to A4 are confirmed. Appeal dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 23 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 24
$i = (int) 23
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109