GORUSU NAGARAJU S/O APPARAOversusSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

60                       [2018]
              SUPREME COURT     3 S.C.R. 60
                            REPORTS                        [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A                  GORUSU NAGARAJU S/O APPARAO

                                        v.

                      STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

B                     (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
C    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
D    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
E    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
F    – 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
G    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
H
                                   60
      GORUSU NAGARAJU S/O APPARAO v. STATE OF                          61
                ANDHRA PRADESH

connected with the crime in question. The circumstances noticed        A
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
                                                                       B
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           C
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
                                                                       D
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           E
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]
                                                                       F
      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.                                                       G

      Vijay Kumar, Adv for the Appellant.

      Ms. Prerna Singh, Guntur Prabhakar, Advs for the Respondent.

                                                                       H
62            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A          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
B    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 the Indian Penal Code, 1860
     (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and under Section 235(2) of the
C    Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Cr.P.C.”)
     and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 302
     IPC with a fine of Rs.200/-, in default, to further undergo simple
     imprisonment for one month and for the offence under Section 201 IPC,
     he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years
D    with a fine of Rs.100/- in default to further undergo simple imprisonment
     for one month. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
           2. For the disposal of the appeal, few relevant facts need to be
     mentioned hereinbelow.
            3. The appellant (A-1) along with four accused persons (A-2,
E    A-3, A-4 and A-5) were prosecuted for commission of the offence
     punishable under Section 302 read with Section 201 of IPC for committing
     murder of one - Desineedi Venkateswararao @ Venkatesh. The IInd
     Additional District & Sessions Judge by his judgment and order dated
     10.06.2005, convicted the appellant (A-1) and sentenced him to undergo
F    imprisonment for life under Section 302 IPC and further to undergo
     rigorous imprisonment for three years under Section 201 IPC and acquitted
     three accused, namely, A-2, A-3 and A-5. So far as A-4 is concerned,
     since he was absconding, his trial was separated.
            4. Against the said order, the appellant filed an appeal in the High
G    Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging his conviction and sentence. The
     State, however, did not file any appeal questioning the order in respect
     of acquittal of A-2, A3 and A-5 and, therefore, the acquittal order became
     final.
            5. The High Court, by impugned judgment, dismissed the appeal
     filed by the appellant(A-1) and upheld the appellant’s conviction and
H
      GORUSU NAGARAJU S/O APPARAO v. STATE OF                                  63
     ANDHRA PRADESH [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]

sentence, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way of special      A
leave by the appellant before this Court.
      6. The question arises for consideration in this appeal is whether
any case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment.
       7. At the outset, we may consider it apposite to state that the
Sessions Judge and the High Court, on appreciation of entire oral evidence,    B
held the appellant guilty of the offences. In other words, both the Courts
on appreciation of oral evidence adduced by the prosecution, recorded a
finding of guilt against the appellant for commission of the offences in
question and accordingly convicted him.
       8. It is a case where the findings of conviction are concurrent in      C
nature and based on appreciation of evidence, therefore, such findings
are usually binding on this 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 this Court. This Court, therefore, usually       D
does not take upon itself to again appreciate the evidence de novo third
time in the appeal subject to the exception pointed out above.
       9. We have perused the entire record including the evidence
adduced by the prosecution. The prosecution examined 33 witnesses
and the defense examined only one witness. We also find that the               E
Sessions Judge and the High Court relied on the evidence of PW-8, PW-
11, PW-12, PW-14, PW-28 and PW-31 for sustaining the conviction of
the appellant (A-1). It is also noticed that the conviction is largely based
on circumstantial evidence.
        10. The High Court, in Para 5 of the impugned judgment, has            F
taken note of the circumstances that led to the death of the deceased
and how the appellant was 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               G
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
                                                                               H
64              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2018] 3 S.C.R.


A    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 the circumstances noticed above
     and kept mum when asked to explain.
           11. The prosecution with the aid of 33 witnesses proved the
B    aforementioned 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 aforementioned seven circumstances, in our
     opinion, their evidence was rightly relied on for sustaining the conviction.
             12. That apart, in our considered opinion, the seven circumstances
C    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.
D           13. Learned counsel for the appellant wanted to go through the
     entire evidence and he actually did it but could not point out any material
     contradiction or inconsistency in evidence. 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
E    unreliable. It is much more so when the two Courts below took note of
     the said evidence and discarded it being wholly immaterial.
            14. We are, therefore, not impressed by the submissions urged by
     the learned counsel of the appellant as it did not make out any case of
     acquittal of the appellant from the offences in question.
F
           15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the
     appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.


     Devika Gujral                                                Appeal dismissed.
G




H