Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Jayachandra Reddy and GN. Ray, JJ.
Gokaraju Venkatanarasa Raju - Petitioner
versus
State of A.P. - Respondent
Crl. Appeal No. 610 of 1990
Decided on 24.8.1993
Held, that in cases depending largely upon circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. But it has been indicated that the gravity of the offence cannot by itself overweigh so far as legal proof is concerned. It has also been indicated that when the main link goes, the chain of circumstances gets snapped and the other circumstances cannot in any manner establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. It is at this juncture, the court has to be watchful and avoid the danger of allowing the suspicion to take the place of legal proof for sometimes unconsciously it may happen to be a short step between moral certainty and legal proof. At times, it can be a case of may be true and not must be true and the same divides conjectures from sure conclusions. (para 9)
Keeping the above principles in mind, it is to be ascertained as to whether in the instant case, the circumstantial evidence has clearly proved the gull t of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts, and the conviction does not lie in the realm of suspicion, however grave it may be. We have taken into consideration the facts established in the instant case and the reasonings given by the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court and it appears to us that the prosecution has established beyond all reasonable doubts that the accused was guilty of the offence charged against him. The circumstances established in the instant case clearly establish the chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that the crime had been committed by the accused and none else and it is incapable of explanation or any other hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. That apart, there are extra judicial confessions in this case as indicated hereinbefore and it has been held by the learned Sessions Judge and by the High Court that such confessions had been voluntarily made without any threat, inducement or promise from any person in authority. Both the Courts have held that the extra judicial confessions made by the accused were not only voluntary but the same were true. Hence, apart from the circumstantial evidence, the extra judicial confessions fully consistent with the circumstantial evidences establish the guilt of the accused. We are not inclined to accept the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the factum of m order could not be established beyond reasonable doubt because the body exhumed was highly decomposed and could not be properly identified. The father and near relations had identified the body and it appears to us that despite the decomposition it was possible to be identified by the near and dear ones. (para 10)
ORDER
G.N. Ray, J. - This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant, Shri Gokaraju Venkatanarasu Raju, under Sections 302,404 and 201, I.P.C. and sentence to suffer imprisonment for life under Section 302, I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 404, I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Sections 201, I.P.C. passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Guntur Division On March 31, 1981 in Session Case No. 35 of 1981, since affirmed by the Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court by its ORDER dated April 27,1984 in Criminal Appeal No. 767 of 1981.
2. The prosecution case in short is that the deceased Rarnabhadra Raju was aged 21 years and was the son of P.W. 1 Ramaraju. The accused, Gokaraju Venkatanarasa Raju and his brother were making their living by tending ducks. In the month of October, 1970 he was living as a tenant in a portion of the house belonging to the sister of P.W. 11 at Kakinada. The accused became acquainted with P.W. 5 who was an employee in Gokul Biscuit Works at Kakinada and also with P.W. 8 who was an employee in a shop. The deceased, Ramabhadra Raju, was married on April 10, 1980 and the wife did not join him after the marriage before his death. The deceased received a gold chain and a gold ring with a figure of Lord Venkateswara embossed on it from his parents-in-law as presents in the marriage. He also received a wrist watch from his parents-in-law, which he exchanged with his father, P.W. 1 for a H.M.T. Kohinoor watch. In the year 1980the deceased and P.W. 2 joined first year class of B.A. Degree and P.W. 3 joined first year class of B. Sc. degree in a college at Nidubrolu. For some time P.Ws. 2 and 3 and deceased used toga to Nidubrolu every day by bus from their respective villages to attend their colleges. As it became inconvenient for them to go daily on bus from distant places, they started living in a room in the house of P.W. 1 at Nidubrolu on rent. The deceased and the said two friends were cooking their own food where they were staying. On-October 27, 1980, at about 7 or 7.30 p.m., the accused went to the deceased in his room and had told him that he had come to Ponnur to witness a cinema show. The deceased, P.Ws. 2 and 3 accompanied the accused. After reaching the railway level crossing, the accused and the deceased went in the direction of the railway track to answer call of nature and P.Ws. 2 and 3 proceeded towards Ponnur for purchase of notebooks. After some time, P.Ws. 2 and 3 came back and thereafter the accused and deceased also returned to the room where they had been living. While the accused was taken leave from the deceased, the deceased addressed the accused in a language which could be understood by the accused only and the accused replied that not on that day but day after. After saying so, the accused left the place. On October 29, 1980, P.W. 2 had seen the deceased with the shirt (M.O. 1), white lungi (M.O. 2) and also a pair of sleepers (M.O. 3) which belonged to P.W. 3. The deceased told to P.W. 2 that he was going to bazar and that he would be returning soon. A little later P.W. 3 returned from Khajipalem and enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased when P.W. 2 informed P.W. 3 that the deceased had gone to the bazar. On October 29,1980, at about 8.30 P.M., while P. W. 17 was at the bus stop wailing for a bus to go to Cherukuplalli, he found the accused and the deceased near a bund close to the bus stop. The said witness, P.W. 17 had also seen both of them going together crossing the road and smoking cigarettes. The deceased informed P.W. 17 that as his father had asked him to go urgently, he was going to the village along with the accused by bus which was ready to start. P.W. 17 however, noted that instead of boarding the bus, the deceased and the accused were seen proceeding towards the drainage channel bund. P.W. 17 became curious and questioned the accused and the deceased as to why they had been going on the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
