LexMADALA VENKATA NARSIMHA RAO versus STATE OF A.P.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 11 S.C.R. 951 MADALA VENKATA NARSIMHA RAO v. STATE OF A.P. (Criminal Appeal No. 393 of 2009) NOVEMBER 27, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND MADAN B. LOKUR, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302 and 376 - Rape and Murder A B - Circumstantial evidence - Three witnesses saw the accused coming out of the house of the victim - Blood-stains on the C clothes of the accused - Victim telling the witnesses that the accused had assaulted her - In post-mortem, the doctor opined that rape was committed on the accused - Trial court acquitted the accused of both the charges - High Court convicted the accused - On appeal, held: There was sufficient D evidence to hold the appellant guilty of committing the murder - But no cogent or admissible evidence regarding rape of the victim - The only evidence as regards rape is the opinion of the doctor who conducted post-mortem, which was not safe to rely upon as the doctor was not examined as a witness. E Appellant-accused was prosecuted for having raped and murdered a girl. The prosecution case was that when the victim/deceased was alone at home, her brother had sent the appellant-accused to the house for some work. PWs 3, 4 and 5 were standing near the house of the victim. F When they heard the cry from the house of the victim, and when they went to the house, they saw the accused running out of the house in blood-stained clothes and he ran away from there pushing them away. The accused was also seen on the streets with blood-stained clothes G by PW-7. The victim told PWs 3, 4 and 5 that the appellant hit her with chutney grinder, as she had slapped him on his holding her hand. PW-8 (doctor) administered her first- 951 H 952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 11 S.C.R. A aid. She died on her way to the hospital. In post-mortem report (Exbt. P-9), the doctor opined that the deceased was also raped. Trial Court acquitted the accused of all the charges. 8 High Court reversing the acquittal, convicted the accused u/ss. 302 and 376 IPC. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 To secure a conviction on circumstantial c evidence, the prosecution must prove its case by cogent, reliable and admissible evidence. Each relevant circumstance must be proved like any other fact and upon a composite reading thereof, it must lead to a ;1igh degree of probability that it is only the accused and none 0 other who has committed the alleged offence. [Para 21) [960-C-D] Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of A.P. (2012) 6 SCC 174 - relied on. E 1.2. In the present case, the presence of the appellant at the scene of the crime, moments after it was discovered, is not in dispute. In fact, he was running away from inside the house where the crime was committed. While doing so, he pushed the persons who were F entering the house on hearing the cries of the deceased. This is proved by the consistent testimony of each one of them. There is nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses to suggest that they had cooked up a story to implicate the appellant. There is no explanation G for this strange conduct whatsoever. The appellant had also blood-stains on his clothes at that time and he was also seen running on the street in that condition independently by PW7 who reached the scene of crime soon thereafter when the deceased was being taken H away for administration of first-aid. The eye-witness MADALA VENKATA NARSIMHA RAO v. STATE OF 953 A.P. account, moments after the discovery of the crime is so A overwhelming, coupled with the conduct of the appellant, that only one conclusion is possible which is that the murder of the deceased was committed by the appellant. [Paras 22, 23, 24 and 25] [960-E-H; 961-A-C] B 1.3. Even the deceased gave virtually a dying declaration in which she narrated the sequence of events including the fact that the appellant had hit her with a chutney grinder on her head and other parts of her body. There is no reason at all why the deceased should falsely C implicate the appellant of such a heinous crime. Her statement on this aspect may be contrasted with her statement on the issue of rape, in which she did not say a word to implicate the appellant. There is, therefore, more than a ring of truth in the statement made by her, moments before her death to PWs 3, 4 and 5. In this view D of the matter, on an overall consideration of all the facts of the case, there is no doubt that t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.