REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1032  OF 2007

Gorusu Nagaraju s/o Apparao            ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

State of Andhra Pradesh    ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

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 Appeal No.955 of 2005 whereby the High

1

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  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 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

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, 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  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.  

3

4. Against the said order, the appellant filed an

appeal  in  the  High  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  sentence,

which has given rise to filing of this appeal by way

of special 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,  held  the

appellant  guilty  of  the  offences.   In  other  words,

4

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 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 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

5

prosecution examined 33 witnesses and the defense

examined only one witness. We also find that the

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 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  injuries;  Fourth,  the

appellant's fingerprints found on the Whisky bottle

6

(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

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 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.  

7

12. That  apart,  in  our  considered  opinion,  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

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.  

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 unreliable.  It is much more

8

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.  

15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no

merit  in the  appeal.  The appeal  thus fails  and is

accordingly dismissed.     

………...................................J. [R.K. AGRAWAL]

                                     …...……..................................J.

        [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] New Delhi; March 23, 2018  

9