Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 316 OF 2008

Kukapalli Mohan Rao  .. Appellant

Versus

State of A.P.  .. Respondent

J U D G M E N T

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. The suspicion that the deceased had illicit relationship with  

the wife of the accused was the reason for this mid-night murder.  

The  accused  had  disclosed  the  same  to  PWs  8  and  9  and  

requested  them  to  warn  the  deceased,  or  else,  the  accused  

announced  that  he  would  deal  with  the  same  and  was  even  

prepared to go to jail.  PWs 8 and 9 warned the deceased, but the

Page 2

2

deceased reacted stating that the accused was only suspecting  

him.

2. At  mid-night  12  O’clock  on  13.6.2001,  the  deceased  was  

sleeping on the western side of Pancha of his house along with  

wife PW 2.   PW 3, brother of the deceased, was also sleeping  

inside  the  house along with  the  children  of  the  deceased.   At  

midnight PW 2 heard the cries of the deceased and woke up and  

saw the accused standing near the deceased with an axe.  PW2  

then called PW 3 who chased the accused, but he escaped leaving  

the axe at the spot.  Noticing that the deceased was bleeding with  

head injury, PW 3 along with PW 5, brother-in-law of the deceased,  

took the deceased in a tractor of PW 12 to a private hospital of PW  

7, where the deceased was declared dead.   Later, PW 4, father of  

the deceased, informed the death of the deceased to PW 1, the  

Village Administrative Officer at 8.00 am on 14.6.2001.   PW 1  

scribed the report - Ex.P1 – and presented the same to the police  

on 14.6.2001 and, on the basis of the same, PW 14, Sub-Inspector  

of  Police  registered  Crime  No.  34  of  2001  and  issued  the  FIR  

Ex.P14.   

Page 3

3

3. PW 15, Inspector of Police, conducted the investigation and  

he  visited  the  scene  of  occurrence  and  completed  other  

formalities,  including  the  inquest  over  the  dead  body  of  the  

deceased.  PW 15 also requisitioned the services of the dog squad  

and seized the material object including the axe which was used  

for  the  commission of  the  offence.   PW 13,  the  Civil  Assistant  

Surgeon, held autopsy over the dead body and opined that the  

cause of death was due to shock and head injury.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove the guilt of the accused,  

examined PW 1 to PW 15 and marked Ex. P1 to P18 and also MOs  

1 to 7.   On behalf of the defence, no oral evidence was adduced,  

but Ex. D1 to 4 were marked.  On conclusion of the examination of  

the  prosecution  witnesses,  the  accused  was  examined  under  

Section  313  Cr.P.C.  and  he  denied  all  incriminating  materials  

appeared against him in the prosecution evidence.    

5. Learned Sessions Judge, after completion of the trial and on  

going  through  the  evidence,  found  the  accused  guilty  of  the  

offence  under  Section  302  IPC  and  sentenced  him  to  life

Page 4

4

imprisonment, vide its judgment dated 14.9.2004.   Aggrieved by  

the same,  the accused filed Criminal  Appeal  No. 2480 of 2004  

before  the  High  Court  of  Andhra  Pradesh.   The  High  Court  

dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentence  

awarded  by  the  Sessions  Court.   Aggrieved  by  the  same,  this  

appeal has been preferred.

6. Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate-on-Record, appearing on behalf  

of  the  appellant,  submitted  that  the  evidence of  PWs 2 and 3  

cannot be believed since they are interest witnesses.  Further, it  

was also pointed that the name of PWs 2 and 3 do not find any  

place Ex.P1 report and, as such, their  testimony be considered  

only with suspicion.  Learned counsel submitted placed reliance  

on the judgment of this Court in Madudanal Augusti v. State of  

Kerala (1980) 4 SCC 425 and submitted 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.   Learned  counsel  also  submitted  that  the  prosecution  

miserably failed to prove the alleged motive for the commission of  

the  offence and,  as  such,  the accused be given the  benefit  of

Page 5

5

doubt.   Further,  it  was  also  pointed  out  that  there  was  

considerable delay in registering the FIR, hence, there is scope for  

concoctions and confabulations. All these factors, according to the  

learned counsel, would be sufficient to acquit the accused giving  

the benefit of doubt.

7. Shri  Shishir Pinaki, learned counsel appearing on behalf of  

the  State,  submitted  that  there  is  no  illegality  in  the  findings  

recorded by the Sessions Court, which were confirmed by the High  

Court.  The evidence of PWs 2 and 3 is reliable and crucial to the  

prosecution case.  Further, it was also pointed out that the axe  

used in the commission of the offence was also recovered from  

the  spot.   Learned  counsel  also  submitted  that  there  was  no  

considerable delay in lodging the FIR and if, at all, there was some  

delay, that has been clearly explained and that explanation has  

been accepted both by the Sessions Court and the High Court.  

Learned  counsel  also  submitted  that  the  motive  for  the  

commission of crime has been established and the evidence of  

PWs 8 and 9 would indicate that the accused was suspecting that  

the deceased had illicit  intimacy with his wife PW 2.   Learned

Page 6

6

counsel  further  submitted  that  even  assuming  that  the  

prosecution has not succeeded in proving the motive, even then  

there is sufficient ocular evidence to prove that the accused had  

committed the offence. Learned counsel submitted that there is  

no  reason  to  upset  the  concurrent  findings  recorded  by  the  

Sessions Court as well as the High Court, after appreciating the  

oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution as  

well as the defence.

8. We  are,  in  this  case,  concerned  only  with  the  question  

whether  the  prosecution  has  proved  the  guilt  of  the  accused  

beyond all reasonable doubt and the Sessions Court and the High  

Court have rightly reached the conclusion that the accused has  

committed the offence.   

9. PWs 2 and 3 are crucial witnesses in this case to establish  

that it was the accused who had committed the crime.  PW 2, wife  

of  the  deceased,  had  clearly  deposed  that  she  herself  and  

daughter were sleeping on a cot and the deceased was sleeping  

on the other cot in the same room.  PW3, brother of the deceased,  

and other family members were sleeping inside the house.  In the

Page 7

7

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 found the accused near the deceased with an axe.  

Out of fear, she called PW 3 and he rushed in.  On seeing PW 3,  

the accused ran away from the place throwing the axe used for  

the commission of the offence.  In our view, the evidence of PW 2  

is trustworthy and we have no reason to disbelieve that  she is  

implicating the accused and she has no motive to do so as well.  

PW  3,  in  his  deposition,  has  categorically  stated  that  he  has  

chased the accused, but when PW 2 had informed him that the  

blood was bleeding from the head of the deceased, he came back.  

PW  3  then  informed  the  incident  to  the  brother-in-law  of  the  

deceased.  PWs 3 and 5 shifted the deceased to a private hospital  

in a tractor and the dead body of the deceased was brought back  

at 3.00 am on 14.6.2001.   PW 3 then informed the incident to the  

brother  of  the  deceased  -  PW 4  through telephone.   PW3 has  

categorically stated that the accused had hacked the deceased  

with an axe and ran away and he found the axe at the scene of  

occurrence.  We have no reason to disbelieve the evidence of PW  

3.  PW 3 also had no reason to implicate the accused in this crime.

Page 8

8

10. PWs 8 and 9 stated that the accused had indicated to them  

that the deceased was having illicit intimacy with his wife.  It was  

stated  that  the  accused had informed them that  he  was even  

prepared to go to jail by beating the deceased, if the deceased  

had  not  stopped  that  illicit  intimacy.   PW 13,  the  doctor,  who  

conducted the post-mortem, opined that the deceased died due to  

shock  and  the  head  injury.   PW  15,  the  Investigating  Officer,  

stated that he had visited the scene of offence at about 12.45 am  

on 14.6.2001 and seized the blood stained earth, material objects  

and conducted the inquest over the dead body of the deceased  

and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.   PW 14,  

Sub-Inspector of Police, stated that he had registered the crime  

No. 34 of 2001 and issued the FIR.  Ex.P1 report clearly discloses  

the  commission  of  the  offence  by  the  accused.   There  is  no  

necessity of the detailed narration of the incident, as to how PWs2  

and 3 saw it,  in the FIR.     PWs 2 and 3 after all  are not the  

authors of the complaint.  Their statements cannot be disbelieved  

on  the  ground  that  their  finding  the  accused  on  the  scene  of  

occurrence with an axe, has not found any place in the FIR.

Page 9

9

11. This Court in  Surjit Singh @ Gurmit Singh v. State of   

Punjab  1993  Supp.  (1)  SCC  208,  held  that  the  FIR  is  not  a  

substantive piece of evidence and can only be used to corroborate  

the statement of the maker under Section 161 of the Evidence Act  

or to contradict him under Section 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.   Reference may  

also be made to the judgment of this Court in  Ravi Kumar v.  

State of Punjab  (2005) 9 SCC 315.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that  

the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the alleged motive  

for the commission of the offence.  In Ex.P1, it was mentioned that  

the accused killed the deceased in view of the illicit intimacy of his  

wife with the deceased.  Prior to the commission of the offence,  

about one month back, the accused had informed PW 5 on the  

illicit affairs of his wife with the deceased and asked him to advise  

the deceased to deter from that.  PW 5 along with PWs 8 and 9  

would indicate that the accused had carried the feeling that the

Page 10

10

deceased  was  having  some  illicit  relationship  with  his  wife.  

Assuming that the prosecution has not succeeded in establishing  

the motive for the commission of the offence, when there is un-

impeachable oral evidence, the motive would be irrelevant.

13. In  Baitullah and Another v. State of U.P. (1998) 1 SCC  

509,  this  Court  has  taken  the  view  that  where  a  murderous  

assault has been established by clear ocular evidence, the motive  

pales into insignificance.   In State of Himachal Pradesh v. Jeet  

Singh  (1999)  4  SCC  370,  this  Court  held  that  it  is  a  sound  

principle to remember that every criminal  act was done with a  

motive, but its corollary is not that no criminal offence would have  

been committed if the prosecution has filed to prove the precise  

motive of the accused to commit it and the prosecution succeeded  

in showing the possibility of some ire for the accused towards the  

victim. This Court held that it is also impossible for the prosecution  

to  unravel  the  full  dimension  of  the  mental  disposition  of  an  

offender towards the person whom he offended.  Reference may  

also be made to the judgments of this Court in  Nathuni Yadav  

and Another v. State of Bihar and Another (1998) 2 SCC 238.

Page 11

11

14. The  direct  evidence  of  illicit  intimacy  cannot  always  be  

expected.  But, taken into consideration of the evidence of PW 5  

and PWs 8 and 9, the prosecution could establish that the accused  

had a grudge or ill-feeling towards the deceased that led him to  

commit the murder.  PWs 2 and 3 found the accused with MO6  

(axe) which was used for the commission of the offence.  PWs 5  

and 9 also stated that in their evidence that they found the axe  

near the cot at the scene of the offence.  The prosecution also  

proved that MO6 axe was seized from the scene of occurrence by  

PW 15, in the presence of PW 1 and 11.  MO6 axe was also sent to  

R.F.S.L.,  Vijayawada  for  analysis  and  from Ex.P18  report  dated  

4.8.2001,  it  was observed that  the  blood of  human origin  was  

detected on MO6 axe.  Therefore, the contention raised by the  

learned counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  accused that  MO6  

was planted, cannot be accepted.

15. We are also not impressed by the contention raised on behalf  

of the appellant that there was delay in informing the incident to  

the  police.  The  incident  had  happened  at  the  midnight  of  

13.6.2001.  The deceased was taken to the private hospital  by

Page 12

12

PWs 3 and 5 in a tractor of PW 7, where he was declared dead.  

The dead body of the deceased was brought back to the house at  

about 3.00 am.  PW 4, father of the deceased, then informed the  

death of the deceased to PW 1, the Village Administrative Officer,  

at about 8.00 am on 14.6.2001.  PW 14, Sub-Inspector of Police,  

stated that he had registered the complaint after 10 hours from  

the time of the incident, i.e. in the morning of 14.6.2001.  Learned  

counsel for the appellant, as we have already indicated, pointed  

out that the delay in reporting the incident to the police cause  

serious suspicion on the evidence of PWs 2 and 3.  It was pointed  

out  that  immediately  after  the  alleged incident,  PW 3 had the  

occasion to pass through Martur village, but had not reported the  

same to the police.  The delay in registering the FIR, according to  

the learned counsel, weakens the prosecution case.  We find no  

basis in the contention raised by the counsel.

16. This  Court  in  State  of  West  Bengal  v.  Orilal  Jaiswal  

(1994) 1 SCC 73 held that the delay in filing the FIR  ipso facto  

could not go to show that the case against the accused is false.  

This Court in Jahoor and Others v. State of U.P. 1999 Supp (1)

Page 13

13

SCC 372, Tara Singh & Others v. State of Punjab 1991 Supp  

(1) SCC 536 and Jamna v. State of U.P. 1994 Supp (1) SCC 185,  

has held that where there is a delay in making the FIR, the Court  

is  to  look  at  the  causes  for  it  and  if  such  causes  are  not  

contributable to any effort to concoct a version, no consequence  

shall be attached to the mere delay in lodging the FIR.  In Tara  

Singh (supra), this Court held as follows:

“It  is  well-settled that  the  delay in  giving the  FIR by  itself cannot be a ground to doubt the prosecution case.  Knowing the Indian conditions as they are we cannot  expect  these  villagers  to  rush  to  the  police  station  immediately after the occurrence. Human nature as it  is, the kith and kin who have witnessed the occurrence  cannot  be  expected  to  act  mechanically  with  all  the  promptitude in giving the report to the police. At times  being grief-stricken because of the calamity it may not  immediately  occur  to  them  that  they  should  give  a  report. After all it is but natural in these circumstances  for them to take some time to go to the police station  for giving the report…..”

The view expressed in the above mentioned judgments was later  

followed  by  this  Court  in  Ravinder  Kumar  and  Another  v.  

State of Punjab (2001) 7 SCC 690.

17. We are of the view that the principle laid down by this Court  

in the above mentioned judgments is squarely applicable to the

Page 14

14

facts of the present case.  Not only that there was no inordinate  

delay  in  informing  the  incident  to  the  police,  there  has  been  

sufficient explanation for the delay of 10 hours in intimating the  

offence  to  the  police.   We,  therefore,  find  no  basis  in  the  

contention  raised  by  the  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellant.

18. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the  

view that the Sessions Court and the High Court have correctly  

come to  the  conclusion that  the  prosecution has succeeded in  

establishing the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.

19. The  appeal,  therefore,  lacks  in  merits  and  accordingly  

dismissed.

                                                          ………………………………..J.          (K.S. Radhakrishnan)

…………………………………..J.           (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi, December 11, 2012