Gentela Vijayavardhan Rao and Anr. v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2791

On 8 March 1993, a Super Express Bus was travelling from Hyderabad to Chilakaluripet in the State of Andhra Pradesh.

At approximately 4:30 A.M., near a railway level crossing at Narasaraopet, the bus was deliberately set on fire.

The driver of the bus (PW-6) sensed a strong smell of petrol and stopped the vehicle to investigate.

He observed that one accused, Challapathy Rao, was pouring petrol inside the bus, while the other accused, G. Vijayvardhan Rao, stood outside carrying a matchbox. Before the passengers could escape, the accused ignited the petrol and set the bus ablaze.

As a result: 23 passengers were burnt alive; and Several others sustained severe burn injuries while attempting to escape.

After setting the bus on fire, the accused allegedly robbed the fleeing passengers by forcibly taking cash, watches, and other valuables before escaping from the scene. A criminal case was registered, and both accused were arrested on 18 March 1993. A test identification parade was conducted before a Judicial Magistrate, during which some surviving passengers identified the accused persons.

The Sessions Court convicted the accused under Sections: 302 IPC (Murder), 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), 392 IPC (Robbery), 341 IPC (Wrongful Restraint), 440 IPC (Mischief by Fire), and 120B IPC (Criminal Conspiracy).

Both accused were sentenced to death. The Andhra Pradesh High Court confirmed the conviction and death sentence. Aggrieved thereby, the accused appealed before the Supreme Court.

Reliability of Identification Evidence: The Supreme Court examined the evidence of surviving passengers and the identification parade conducted during investigation. The Court found that several eyewitnesses consistently identified the accused persons as the perpetrators of the crime. The Court held that the identification evidence was trustworthy and sufficiently established the involvement of the accused in the incident.

Dying Declarations and Minor Discrepancies: The Court considered the dying declarations made by some victims, wherein reference was made to four assailants instead of two. The defence argued that this discrepancy undermined the prosecution case. However, the Court held that minor inconsistencies regarding the number of assailants did not affect the core prosecution case against the two identified accused. The Court observed that the involvement of the appellants stood conclusively established through independent evidence and eyewitness testimony.

Applicability of the Doctrine of Res Gestae: The Supreme Court examined Section 6 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, relating to the doctrine of Res Gestae. The Court emphasized that for statements to qualify as part of the same transaction under Section 6: They must be substantially contemporaneous with the occurrence; and There should not be any appreciable interval permitting fabrication or reflection. The Court held that the dying declarations in the present case were recorded after a time lapse and therefore lacked the immediacy required for admissibility under the doctrine of Res Gestae. Consequently, they were not admissible as substantive evidence under Section 6.

Use of Dying Declarations for Corroboration: Although the statements were held inadmissible as Res Gestae, the Court clarified that they could still be relied upon for corroborative purposes alongside other admissible evidence. The Court found that the prosecution case was otherwise firmly supported by: Eyewitness testimony, Identification evidence, Medical evidence, and Circumstantial evidence.