KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO versus STATE OF A.P.

Citation: [2012] 9 S.C.R. 1086 · Decided: 11-12-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012) 9 S.C.R. 1086 
KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO 
V. 
STATE OF A.P. 
(Criminal Appeal No. 316 of 2008) 
DECEOMBER 11, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860- s.302 - Murder- Eyewitness account 
- A/legation that appellant hacked the deceased with an axe 
C as he suspected that the latter was having illicit relationship 
with his wife - Conviction of appellant u/s.302 /PC - Justification 
- Held: Justified - PW2 (wife of deceased) and PW3 (brother 
of deceased) were crucial witnesses to establish that it was the 
appellant who had committed the crime - Evidence of PW2 
D was trustworthy and it cannot be said that she was implicating 
the appellant - She had no motive to do so as well - Direct 
evidence of illicit intimacy cannot always be expected, but, 
taking into consideration the evidence of PW5 and PWs 8 and 
9, the prosecution could establish that appellant had a grudge 
E or ill-feeling towards the deceased that led him to commit the 
murder - Prosecution also proved that axe was seized from 
the scene of occurrence by PW 15, in the presence of PWs 
1 and 11 - Also, blood of human origin was detected on the 
axe - Further, there was sufficient explanation for the delay of 
F 
10 hours in intimating the offence to the police - The 
prosecution had succeeded in establishing the guilt of the 
appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. 
FIR - Evidentiary value of - Held: FIR is not a substantive 
piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate the 
G statement of the maker u/s.161 of the Evidence Act or to 
contradict him u/s. 145 of the Act - It is not the requirement of 
the law that the minutest details be recorded in the FIR lodged 
immediately after the occurrence - Evidence Act, 1872 -
ss.145 and 161. 
H 
1086 
KUKAPALLI MOHAN RAO v. STATE OF A.P. 
1087 
Motive - When irrelevant • Held: Motive would be 
A 
irrelevant when there is un-impeachable oral evidence. 
The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant 
committed the murder of the deceased as he suspected 
that the latter was having illicit relationship with his wife. 
8 
The incident allegedly occurred at midnight when the 
deceased was sleeping in his house with his wife PW2. 
PW3, the brother of the deceased, was also sleeping 
inside the said house at that time. 
An axe was allegedly used as the weapon of offence. 
C 
The deceased had sustained bleeding head injuries. 
PW4, the father of the deceased, informed about the 
death of the deceased to PW1, the Village Administrative 
Officer, who scribed the report Ex.P1, and presented the 
same to the police and, on the basis of the same, PW14, 
D 
Sub Inspector of Police issued the FIR Ex. P14. The 
Sessions Court convicted the appellant under Section 
302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The 
conviction and sentence was confirmed by the High 
Court. 
E 
In the instant appeal, the appellant contended that 
the evidence of PWs 2 and 3 could not be believed since 
they were interested witnesses; that the names of PWs 
2 and 3 did not find any place in Ex.P1 report and, as 
such, their testimony be considered only with suspicion; 
that omission to mention the names of the eye-witnesses 
in the FIR and unexplained delay in despatch of FIR 
would throw serious doubt on the prosecution case; that 
F 
the prosecution miserably failed to prove the alleged 
motive for the commission of the offence and, as such, 
G 
the appellant be given the benefit of doubt; and further 
that there was considerable delay in registering the FIR, 
and thus the appellant was entitled to be acquitted. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
1088 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012] 9 S C.R 
A 
HELD: 1. PWs 2 and 3 are crucial witnesses in this 
case to establish that it was the accused-appellant who 
had committed the crime. PW2, wife of the deceased, had 
clearly deposed that she herself and daughter were 
sleeping on a cot and the deceased was sleeping on the 
B other cot in the same room. PW3, brother of the 
deceased, and other family members were sleeping inside 
the house. In the midnight on 13.6.2001, the deceased 
raised a cry as "Ammo". On hearing the cries of the 
deceased, she woke up and switched on the light and 
C found the appellant near the deceased with an axe. Out 
of fear, she called PW 3 and he rushed in. On seeing PW 
3, the appellant ran away from the place throwing the axe 
used for the commission of the offence. The evidence of 
PW2 is trustworthy and it cannot be said that

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