Gorusu Nagaraju vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh

Gorusu Nagaraju s/o Apparao ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Andhra Pradesh ….Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the accused from jail

through the Supreme Court Legal Services

Committee against the final judgment and order

dated 15.12.2006 passed by the High Court of Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHA SUNDRIYAL Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Date: 2018.03.23 17:16:55 IST Reason:

Criminal Appeal No.955 of 2005 whereby the High

1 Court affirmed the judgment and order dated

10.06.2005 passed by the IInd Additional District

and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamundary

in Sessions Case No.193 of 2000 by which the

appellant(A-1) was convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as

"IPC") and under Section 235(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as

"the Cr.P.C.") and sentenced him to undergo

imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC with a

fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to further undergo

simple imprisonment for one month and for the

offence under Section 201 IPC, he was sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with

a fine of Rs.100/- in default to further undergo

simple imprisonment for one month. Both the

sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2

2. For the disposal of the appeal, few relevant

facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow.

3. The appellant (A-1) along with four accused

persons (A-2, A-3, A-4 and A-5) were prosecuted for

commission of the offence punishable under Section

302 read with Section 201 of IPC for committing

murder of one - Desineedi Venkateswararao @

Venkatesh. The IInd Additional District & Sessions

Judge by his judgment and order dated 10.06.2005,

convicted the appellant (A-1) and sentenced him to

undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302

IPC and further to undergo rigorous imprisonment

for three years under Section 201 IPC and acquitted

three accused, namely, A-2, A-3 and A-5. So far as

A-4 is concerned, since he was absconding, his trial

was separated.

3

4. Against the said order, the appellant filed an

appeal in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh

challenging his conviction and sentence. The State,

however, did not file any appeal questioning the

order in respect of acquittal of A-2, A3 and A-5 and,

therefore, the acquittal order became final.

5. The High Court, by impugned judgment,

dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant(A-1) and

upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence,

which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way

of special leave by the appellant before this Court.

6. The question arises for consideration in this

appeal is whether any case is made out to interfere

in the impugned judgment.

7. At the outset, we may consider it apposite to

state that the Sessions Judge and the High Court,

on appreciation of entire oral evidence, held the

appellant guilty of the offences. In other words,

4 both the Courts on appreciation of oral evidence

adduced by the prosecution, recorded a finding of

guilt against the appellant for commission of the

offences in question and accordingly convicted him.

8. It is a case where the findings of conviction are

concurrent in nature and based on appreciation of

evidence, therefore, such findings are usually

binding on this Court. However, if the appellant is

able to show any perversity, arbitrariness, absurdity

or illegality in any such concurrent findings then, in

such circumstances, the findings though

concurrent are not binding on this Court. This

Court, therefore, usually does not take upon itself to

again appreciate the evidence de novo third time in

the appeal subject to the exception pointed out

above.

9. We have perused the entire record including

the evidence adduced by the prosecution. The

5 prosecution examined 33 witnesses and the defense

examined only one witness. We also find that the

Sessions 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 of the

appellant (A-1). It is also noticed that the conviction

is largely based on circumstantial evidence.

10. The High Court, in Para 5 of the impugned

judgment, has taken note of the circumstances that

led to the death of the deceased and how the

appellant was connected with the crime in question.

The circumstances noticed are first, the deceased

was last seen in the company 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 bleeding injuries; Fourth, the

appellant's fingerprints found on the Whisky bottle

6 (McDowell) and glass and on other seized articles at

the scene of occurrence by the Handwriting &

Fingerprint Expert; Fifth, the recovery of all the

seized articles was made at the instance of the

appellant; Sixth, the appellant was having some

grudge against the deceased because the appellant

had requested the deceased to sort out some issues

between him and PW-6 but the deceased failed to do

so for some reasons; Seventh, the appellant failed

to explain any of the circumstances noticed above

and kept mum when asked to explain.

11. The prosecution with the aid of 33 witnesses

proved the aforementioned seven circumstances. It

is true that out of 33 witnesses, some turned hostile

but those, who did not turn hostile and maintained

consistent version of the aforementioned seven

circumstances, in our opinion, their evidence was

rightly relied on for sustaining the conviction.

7

12. That apart, in our considered opinion, the

seven circumstances noticed and relied on by the

prosecution were material circumstances and,

therefore, rightly made basis to connect the

appellant with the commission of the crime in

question. Indeed, the chain of events which led to

death of the deceased was established without any

break implicating the appellant with the chain of

events.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to go

through the entire evidence and he actually did it

but could not point out any material contradiction

or inconsistency in evidence. It is a well settled

principle of criminal law that some minor

contradiction or inconsistency in evidence cannot

affect the material evidence and such contradiction

or inconsistency cannot be made basis to discard

the whole evidence as unreliable. It is much more

8 so when the two Courts below took note of the said

evidence and discarded it being wholly immaterial.

14. We are, therefore, not impressed by the

submissions urged by the learned counsel of the

appellant as it did not make out any case of

acquittal of the appellant from the offences in

question.

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no

merit in the appeal. The appeal thus fails and is

accordingly dismissed.

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

…...……..................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi;

March 23, 2018

9