GOKARAJU VENKATANARASA RAJU versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [1993] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 737 · Decided: 24-08-1993 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

, 
GOKARAJU VENKATANARASA RAJU 
v. 
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
AUGUST 24, 1993 
[K. JAYACHANDRA REDDY AND G.N. RAY, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code 186(}--Sections 302, 201 & 404-Murder~onvic­
tion based on circumstantial evidence-Requisites of 
Indian Evidence Act-Circumstantial evidence-Requirements for con-
viction. 
Dead body in a decomposed state-Recognition of by near and dear 
ones-Necessity for. 
A 
B 
c 
On November 3, 1980 the father (PWl) of the deceased made a report 
at the Police Station that his son was missing and was last seen on October D 
27, 1980 in the company of the accused. On November' 19, 1980 the 
accused-appellant was apprehended and interrogated at the place of PWl 
in the presence of PWsl to 24. The accused-appellant made a statement 
that he stangulated the deceased with a chain and murdered him. The 
Sessions Judge on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case E 
held that prosecution proved the case beyond doubt and hence convicted 
and sentenced the accused-appellant for life. 
On an appeal by the appellant the High Court concurred with the 
findings of the Sessions Court. The High Court while dismissing the 
appeal held that although there was no eye-witne"s but the cumulative F 
effect of all the circumstances which the prosecution had established 
conclusively proved the guilt of the accused and that the extra judicial 
confessions were voluntary, true and made without any inducement. 
In the Criminal Appeals by way of a Special Leave the appellant G 
contended (a) that the circumstantial evidence were not absolutely clinch-
ing and that there were missing links; (b) that the identity of the dead body 
was highly doubtful since it was in a decomposed state and was beyond 
recognition inspite of the identification of a wearing apparel. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court 
737 
H 
738 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993] SUPP. l S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: The circumstantial evidence clearly establishes the chain so 
complete that there is no escape frorn the conclusion that the crilne has 
been committed by the accused and is incapable of any other hypothesis 
consistent with the innocence of the ac,,used and the extra-judicial confes-
sion has been voluntary made without any threat inducement or promise 
B from from any person in authority. [747-H, 748-A] 
c 
D 
Although there was no eye-witness of the actual occurence but on the 
basis of the materials on record and various circumstances referred to by 
Sessions Judge the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable 
doubt. [744-G] 
The chain of evidence furnished by the circumstances must be so far 
complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consisterit 
with the innocence of the accused. [746-D] 
Deonandan Mishra v. 77ie State of Bihar, [1955] 2 SCR 570, followed. 
The charge of murder like any other charge of offence can be 
established by inferences but when.there is extremely little byway of direct 
evidence, it is due to the accused that there should be no exaggeration of 
minor incidents in the case and that each inference should be verified with 
E scrupulous accuracy. [746-G] 
Circumstantial eYidence in order to furnish a basis for conviction 
requires a very high degree of probability that is so sulliciently high that 
a prudent man considering all the facts and realising that life or liberty 
of the accused depends upon the decision, feels justified in holding that 
F the accused has committed justified in holding that the accused had 
committed the crime. [746-H] 
G 
Vidyasagar v. State, (1977) Cr.L.J. 950 (SC), followed. 
The Court has to be watchful and avoid danger of allowing the 
suspJcion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes unconsciously it 
may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. At 
times it can be a case of 'may be true' and not 'must be true' and the same 
divides conjectures from sure conclusions. [747-E] 
H 
Jawaharlal Dass v. State of Q1;ssa, [1991] 3 SCC 27, followed. 
G.V.RAJU v. STATE OF A.P. [G.N. RAY,J.] 
739 
Apart from the circ111nstantial evidence, the extra judicial confes-
A 
sions fully consistent with the circumstantial evidences establish the guilt 
of the accnsed. [748-B) 
The father and near relatives had identified the body and it appears 
to us that despite the decomposition it was possible to be identified by the 
near and dear ones. [748-C) 
B 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JU,USDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
610 of 1990. 
From the Judgment 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.