GORUSU NAGARAJU S/O APPARAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

Citation: [2018] 3 S.C.R. 60 · Decided: 23-03-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
60
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
GORUSU NAGARAJU S/O APPARAO
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
(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 – Circumstantial
evidence – Conviction of appellant-accused by trial court affirmed
by High Court – Concurrent findings of the courts below – On
appeal, held: The chain of events which led to death of the deceased
was established without any break implicating the appellant with
the chain of events – Appellant could not prove any material
contradiction or inconsistency in evidence – No reason to interfere
with 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 based
on appreciation of evidence, such findings are usually binding on
Supreme 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 Supreme Court.
Evidence: Minor contradictions – Effect on prosecution case
– Held: 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
so when the two courts below took note of the said evidence and
discarded it being wholly immaterial.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : The High Court took note of the circumstances
that led to the death of the deceased and how the appellant was
  [2018]  3 S.C.R. 60
   60
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
61
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 (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 these
circumstances and kept mum when asked to explain. The
prosecution with the aid of 33 witnesses proved the 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 seven circumstances, their evidence
was rightly relied on for sustaining the conviction. That apart,
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. The appellant could not prove
any material contradiction or inconsistency in evidence.
[Paras 10-13] [63-F-H; 64-A-B]
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
No. 1032 of 2007.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.12.2006 of the High Court
of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal
No. 955 of 2005.
Vijay Kumar, Adv for the Appellant.
Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Prabhakar, Advs for the Respondent.
GORUSU NAGARAJU S/O APPARAO v. STATE OF
ANDHRA PRADESH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
62
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 3 S.C.R.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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 Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal
Appeal No.955 of 2005 whereby the High 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

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