LexKODALI PURANCHANDRA RAO & ANR. versus THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
602
KODALI PURANCHANDRA RAO & ANR.
V,
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ANDHRA PRADESH
September 2, 1975
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. N. BHAGWATI AND R. S. SARKAR!\, JJ.]
Indian Pi:nal Code (Act 45 of 1860) ss. 210, 218 and 468; Code of Critnincl
Procedure (Act 5 of 1898) s. 174-Scope of.
A
•
B
..
'-(
On a report given by the father, regarding the disappearance of. his
t".\'o
{
dauohters investigation was taken up by the D.S.P. because of certain special
circ~n1sta;1ces. After completing the investigation, A-2, a sub-inspector of police,
A·l his friend and another were charged with offences under ss. 120B, 366,
376: 302/34, fo1, 218, 468/34, and 324 I.P.C. for conspiracy,
abduction,
C
rape, murder, cau~ing evidence of
crime
to
disappear,
fabricating
reports,
forgery and causing hurt.
The trial court acquitted all the accuse1d.
On JJ.!lPeal by the State. th;: High
Court convicted A.1 and A.2 for offences under ss. 201, 218 and 468 1.P.C.
Oismissing the appeal to this Court,
HELD·: (1) Jn order to bring home an offence under s. 201. I.P.C., the
prosecution has to prove; (a) that an offence has been committed; (b) that the
a.ccuM:d knew or had reason to believe that the offence has been committed;
(c) tb.at with such knowledge or belief he, (i) caused any evidence of the
comn1ission of that offence' to disappear. or, (ii) gave any information respecting
that offence which he then knew or believed to be false; ( d) that he did so
'"'ith the intention of ~crcening the offender from legal punishment: and (e)
if the charge be of an aggr~vated form, as in the present case, that the offence
in rerpect of which the accused caused evidence to disappear was punishable
w·ith death or with imprisonment for life or with imprisonment extending to
IO yem. [6 IOA-E]
\Vhether the circumstantial evidence in a particular case is sufficient and safe
enongh t . .) warrant a finding that an offence has been committed, is a question
which belong!li to the realm of facts and not of law. So is the question whether
the accu~d knew or had reason to believe that such an offence has been com-
mitted.
[617H-618B]
Pall'inder Kaur v. State of Punjab, [19531 S.C.R. 94, explained.
(2) Jn the present case the two girls died an unnatural death.
The corpse
of one was found on a beach having been washed ashore and the Corpse of the
other was seen floating in the sea.
A fislrerman who noticed the second body
saw marks indicating throttling.
He
removed
a
wrist
watch
and
orna-
ment:; from it and allowed the body to drift away. The wrist watch and orn~
ments were identified
as
belonging to
the
younger sister of the first
victim.
The 3 possibilities· are,
that they
committoed
suicide by drown-
ing, or that their deaths were
accidental,
or that
they
were
done
to
death by 1ome person or persons.
The choice of' anv of
these pos.sibilities
would leaO_ to the ex::Iusion of the other two.
[610G-H]
D
F
G
3(a) The elder sister was a graduate and a mature girl of 22 who U'5ed
to
H
be the leader of the College Union.
On the day of the occurrence the decea-
sed girls along \vith their parents had particioated in certain festivities.
They
were cheerful ar.d there was no evidence to show tohat thev were suffering from
anv mental depression with suicidal tendencies.
[61 IE-H]
•
•
•
...
'
'
K. P. RAO v. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (Sarkaria, J.)
603
A
(b) The body on the sea-shore was in a semi-nude condition·. It had on only
B
c
D
F
G
H
blouse, brassiere, petticoat and drawers but no sari. From the fact that it is
customary for women of the locality to tie their saries, tightly the possibility of
the sari having been swept off bv waves was remote. This shows that she was
not wearing her sari when her bcdy was immersed in \vater, but no Indian
woman would commit suicide by jumping into sea in such a near nude condition,
because, it would expose h_er body to post n1ortenz indignity.
[611 H-162 C]
(c) When the body \Vas first seen there were, an injury on the forehead
fron1 which blood was oozing. a reddish abrasion on the thigh and blood marks
o? the drawers. The stomacQ, how;:ver, \Vas not in a bloated conditon. These
circumstances show that death was not due to drowning.
[612 G; E·F]
(4) It was nobody·s case that any boat met with an accident off or near
the sea·shore resulting in loss of human life.
No suggestion of accidental death
of any person or woman \Vas put to any prosExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.