GORUSU NAGARAJU S/O APPARAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH on 23 March 2018

60

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 3 S.C.R.

AGORUSU NAGARAJU S/O APPARAO

v.

STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

B

(Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 2007)

MARCH 23, 2018

[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]

Penal Code, 1860: ss.302 and 201 – Murder – CircumstantialCevidence – Conviction of appellant-accused by trial court affirmedby High Court – Concurrent findings of the courts below – Onappeal, held: The chain of events which led to death of the deceasedwas established without any break implicating the appellant withthe chain of events – Appellant could not prove any materialDcontradiction or inconsistency in evidence – No reason to interferewith the concurrent finding of the courts below.

Appeal: Concurrent findings of the lower courts – Held:Where the findings of conviction are concurrent in nature and basedon appreciation of evidence, such findings are usually binding onESupreme Court – However, if the appellant is able to show anyperversity, arbitrariness, absurdity or illegality in any suchconcurrent findings then, in such circumstances, the findings thoughconcurrent are not binding on Supreme Court.

Evidence: Minor contradictions – Effect on prosecution caseF– Held: It is a well settled principle of criminal law that some minorcontradiction or inconsistency in evidence cannot affect the materialevidence and such contradiction or inconsistency cannot be madebasis to discard the whole evidence as unreliable – It is much moreso when the two courts below took note of the said evidence andGdiscarded it being wholly immaterial.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

H

HELD : The High Court took note of the circumstancesthat led to the death of the deceased and how the appellant was connected with the crime in question. The circumstances noticedare first, the deceased was last seen in the company of theappellant (A-1); Second, the appellant and the deceased, bothwent together to a liquor shop to purchase bottle of whisky;Third, recovery of the body from the heap of hay of PW-18 withbleeding injuries; Fourth, the appellant’s fingerprints found onthe Whisky bottle (McDowell) and glass and on other seizedarticles at the scene of occurrence by the Handwriting &Fingerprint Expert; Fifth, the recovery of all the seized articleswas made at the instance of the appellant; Sixth, the appellantwas having some grudge against the deceased because theappellant had requested the deceased to sort out some issuesbetween him and PW-6 but the deceased failed to do so for somereasons; Seventh, the appellant failed to explain any of thesecircumstances and kept mum when asked to explain. Theprosecution with the aid of 33 witnesses proved the sevencircumstances. It is true that out of 33 witnesses, some turnedhostile but those, who did not turn hostile and maintainedconsistent version of the seven circumstances, their evidencewas rightly relied on for sustaining the conviction. That apart,the seven circumstances noticed and relied on by the prosecutionwere material circumstances and, therefore, rightly made basisto connect the appellant with the commission of the crime inquestion. Indeed, the chain of events which led to death of thedeceased was established without any break implicating theappellant with the chain of events. The appellant could not proveany material contradiction or inconsistency in evidence.[Paras 10-13] [63-F-H; 64-A-B]

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal AppealNo. 1032 of 2007.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2006 of the High Courtof Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal AppealNo. 955 of 2005.

Vijay Kumar, Adv for the Appellant.

Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Prabhakar, Advs for the Respondent.

AB

C

DE

F

G

H

62SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2018] 3 S.C.R.

AThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. This appeal is filed by theaccused from jail through the Supreme Court Legal Services Committeeagainst the final judgment and order dated 15.12.2006 passed by theHigh Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in CriminalBAppeal No.955 of 2005 whereby the High Court affirmed the judgmentand order dated 10.06.2005 passed by the IInd Additional District andSessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamundary in Sessions Case No.193of 2000 by which the appellant(A-1) was convicted for the offencespunishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860(hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and under Section 235(2) of theCCriminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”)and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302IPC with a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to further undergo simpleimprisonment for one month and for the offence under Section 201 IPC,he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three yearsDwith a fine of Rs.100/- in default to further undergo simple imprisonmentfor one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.2. For the disposal of the appeal, few relevant facts need to bementioned hereinbelow.

3. The appellant (A-1) along with four accused persons (A-2,EA-3, A-4 and A-5) were prosecuted for commission of the offencepunishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of IPC for committingmurder of one - Desineedi Venkateswararao @ Venkatesh. The IIndAdditional District & Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated10.06.2005, convicted the appellant (A-1) and sentenced him to undergoFimprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and further to undergorigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 IPC and acquittedthree accused, namely, A-2, A-3 and A-5. So far as A-4 is concerned,since he was absconding, his trial was separated.

4. Against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal in the HighGCourt of Andhra Pradesh challenging his conviction and sentence. TheState, however, did not file any appeal questioning the order in respectof acquittal of A-2, A3 and A-5 and, therefore, the acquittal order becamefinal.

5. The High Court, by impugned judgment, dismissed the appealfiled by the appellant(A-1) and upheld the appellant’s conviction andH

sentence, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of specialleave by the appellant before this Court.

6. The question arises for consideration in this appeal is whetherany case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment.

7. At the outset, we may consider it apposite to state that theSessions Judge and the High Court, on appreciation of entire oral evidence,held the appellant guilty of the offences. In other words, both the Courtson appreciation of oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, recorded afinding of guilt against the appellant for commission of the offences inquestion and accordingly convicted him.

8. It is a case where the findings of conviction are concurrent innature and based on appreciation of evidence, therefore, such findingsare usually binding on this Court. However, if the appellant is able toshow any perversity, arbitrariness, absurdity or illegality in any suchconcurrent findings then, in such circumstances, the findings thoughconcurrent are not binding on this Court. This Court, therefore, usuallydoes not take upon itself to again appreciate the evidence de novo thirdtime in the appeal subject to the exception pointed out above.

9. We have perused the entire record including the evidenceadduced by the prosecution. The prosecution examined 33 witnessesand the defense examined only one witness. We also find that theSessions Judge and the High Court relied on the evidence of PW-8, PW-11, PW-12, PW-14, PW-28 and PW-31 for sustaining the conviction ofthe appellant (A-1). It is also noticed that the conviction is largely basedon circumstantial evidence.

10. The High Court, in Para 5 of the impugned judgment, hastaken note of the circumstances that led to the death of the deceasedand how the appellant was connected with the crime in question. Thecircumstances noticed are first, the deceased was last seen in thecompany of the appellant (A-1); Second, the appellant and the deceased,both went together to a liquor shop to purchase bottle of whisky; Third,recovery of the body from the heap of hay of PW-18 with bleedinginjuries; Fourth, the appellant’s fingerprints found on the Whisky bottle(McDowell) and glass and on other seized articles at the scene ofoccurrence by the Handwriting & Fingerprint Expert; Fifth, the recoveryof all the seized articles was made at the instance of the appellant; Sixth,the appellant was having some grudge against the deceased because A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Athe appellant had requested the deceased to sort out some issues betweenhim and PW-6 but the deceased failed to do so for some reasons; Seventh,the appellant failed to explain any of the circumstances noticed aboveand kept mum when asked to explain.

11. The prosecution with the aid of 33 witnesses proved theBaforementioned seven circumstances. It is true that out of 33 witnesses,some turned hostile but those, who did not turn hostile and maintainedconsistent version of the aforementioned seven circumstances, in ouropinion, their evidence was rightly relied on for sustaining the conviction.

12. That apart, in our considered opinion, the seven circumstancesCnoticed and relied on by the prosecution were material circumstancesand, therefore, rightly made basis to connect the appellant with thecommission of the crime in question. Indeed, the chain of events whichled to death of the deceased was established without any break implicatingthe appellant with the chain of events.

D13. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to go through theentire evidence and he actually did it but could not point out any materialcontradiction or inconsistency in evidence. It is a well settled principleof criminal law that some minor contradiction or inconsistency in evidencecannot affect the material evidence and such contradiction orinconsistency cannot be made basis to discard the whole evidence asEunreliable. It is much more so when the two Courts below took note ofthe said evidence and discarded it being wholly immaterial.

14. We are, therefore, not impressed by the submissions urged bythe learned counsel of the appellant as it did not make out any case ofacquittal of the appellant from the offences in question.F

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in theappeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.

Devika GujralG

Appeal dismissed.

H