GOLAKONDA VENKATESWARA RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2003] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 96 · Decided: 01-08-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOLAKONDA VENKATESWARA RAO 
v. 
ST A TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
AUGUST l, 2003. 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Section 3-Conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence-
C Justification of-Held: Conviction can be based on circtJmstantial evidence 
when prosecution establishes circumstantial evidence beyond all reasonable 
doubts-Such circumstances should be consistent and must point to t~e guilt 
of the accused-Jn the instant case, all circumstantial evidence established 
thus conviction of accused upheld-Penal Code, 1860-Section 302. 
D 
Sections 27 and 3-Voluntary disclosure statement-Recovery of 
articles-Evidentiary value of-Held: When articles recovered in pursuance 
to information given is confirmed by discovery of articles of deceased, such 
information and statement cannot be false-Further investigating officer not 
sealing material recovered is inconsequential and also the non-production of 
E two articles before the court when othf!rS have been proved beyond reasonable 
doubt. 
According to the prosecution, appellant-accused committed rape of 
a minor girl and threw her into the well thereby killing her. It is alleged 
that the appellant buried the torn clothes of the deceased. Two months 
F after the incident PW-1-foster father of the deceased came to know 
through PW-5-a village woman that two months prior to the date of 
missing she noticed the appellant talking with the deceased. On being asked 
by the village elders the appellant confessed that he committed rape of 
the victim, killed her and threw her into the well. PW-1 then lodged FIR. 
Sessions Judge found the circumstantial evidence established against the 
G appellant-accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC; he however, 
acquitted him of the charges under Section 376 and 201 IPC. High Court 
upheld the order. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the prosecution has not established the 
circumstances appearing against the appellant beyond all reasonable 
H 
96 
... 
G.V. RAO v. STATE OF A.P 
97 
doubts; that the identity of the deceased was not established as the A 
Assistant Director who issu~d Superimposition Report was not examined; 
that last seen of the deceased with the appellant by PW-5 has not been 
established by convincing evidence having regard to the discrepancie~ 
appearing in the testimony of. PW-5 and the FIR; that the disclosure 
statement and recovery of the articles is doubtful and no reliance can be 
placed on it; that the materials recovered were not sealed by the police; B 
and that the hairpin and bangles recovered were not produced before the 
Court . 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. It is well settled principle of law that in cases where the C 
evidence is purely circumstantial in nature, the facts and circumstances 
from- which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully 
established beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be 
consistent and unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and the chain 
of circumstances must be established by the prosecution. [101-D] 
D 
2.1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the prosecution had 
established the circumstantial evidence beyond all reasonable doubt, thus 
the conviction of the appellant-accused is upheld. (101-E) 
2.2. The Assistant Director who issued the Superimposition report 
certified that the skull could have belonged to the person in the E 
photograph. Court would not be oblivious of the fact that the identity of 
the deceased was got tested by superimposition of the skeletal remains of 
the deceased conducted with reference to the photograph of the deceased. 
Police official deposed that he had sent the photograph of the deceased 
for superimposition test by the Laboratory. Doctor who conducted the p 
post-mortem examination of skeletal remains gave the age of the deceased 
between 15-16 years. This is corroborated by PW-9, the Professor & 
Scientist working in the laboratory. The opinion of the forensic expert also 
makes it clear that the skull belonged to a human-being of female sex aged 
15 or 16 years. Thus, the identity of the deceased is well established beyond 
all reasonable doubts and non-examination of the Assistant Director would G 
not itself throw away the otherwise reliable and trustworthy evidence. 
(101-F-H; 102-A-B) 
2.3. PW-5 was examined after a long gap of four years. It is not 
expected from a rustic village woman to have remembered the inci

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