Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     NO.     393     OF     2009   

Madala Venkata Narsimha Rao …..Appellant

Versus

State of A.P.     …..Respondent

J     U     D     G     M     E     N     T   

Madan     B.     Lokur,     J.   

1. The question for consideration is whether the High Court  

was right in setting aside the acquittal of the appellant for the  

murder of Lalitha and whether she was raped before her  

murder. In our opinion, there is sufficient evidence to hold the  

appellant guilty of committing the murder of Lalitha, but no  

cogent or admissible evidence of her having been raped.   

The facts:

2. On 4th December, 1998 PW-1 Srimannarayana and his  

wife had gone to village Jangareddygudem at about 6.00 a.m.  

for the purpose of fixing a matrimonial alliance for their  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 1 of 15

Page 2

daughter, Lalitha. Later that day, at about 7/7.30 a.m. PW-2  

Subrahmanyam son of Srimannarayana and brother of Lalitha  

opened their kirana shop. He then instructed the appellant  

who had been working with the family for the last about 10  

years to get some tiffin from a hotel, deliver it to him and then  

deliver to his sister, Lalitha, who was at their residence.

3. According to Subrahmanyam, the appellant did not turn  

up for some time and at about 8.15 a.m. his uncle, PW-3  

Lakshmi Narayana came to the kirana shop and informed him  

that his sister, Lalitha, was lying badly injured at their  

residence. Both of them then rushed to the residence where  

they picked up Lalitha and took her to a local doctor PW-8  

Kasi Viswanadham who administered first-aid. However,  

considering Lalitha’s serious condition, she was advised to be  

shifted to Rajamundry. Transport was arranged to take her to  

Rajamundry but she died en route. Her body was then  

brought back and kept in the front courtyard of the house.

4. In the meanwhile, Srimannarayan was informed about  

the incident by another daughter and he rushed back to his  

residence at about 9.30 a.m. by which time Lalitha had died.

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 2 of 15

Page 3

5. After conducting necessary investigations, on the basis of  

a first information report lodged by Lakshmi Narayana, a  

challan was filed by the police in which it was alleged that the  

appellant had raped Lalitha and had murdered her.

6. According to the prosecution, Lakshmi Narayana, the  

uncle of Subrahmanyam and elder brother of Srimannarayana  

was asked by Srimannarayana to look after his residence in  

his absence.  In this connection, Lakshmi Narayana went to  

their residential house at about 8 a.m. or so.  There he found  

some neighbors PW-4 Purnachandra Rao and PW-5  

Venkateswara Rao chitchatting and he joined them in the  

conversation. Suddenly, they heard some cries emanating  

from inside the house of Srimannarayana and while they were  

entering the house in response to the cries, the appellant  

came running out of the house with blood-stained clothes,  

pushed them and ran away.

7. When Lakshmi Narayana, Purnachandra Rao and  

Venkateswara Rao entered the house they found Lalitha lying  

in a pool of blood and she informed them that the appellant  

had got hold of her hand whereupon she slapped him.  He  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 3 of 15

Page 4

then picked up a chutney grinder and hit her on the head and  

other parts of the body and stabbed her with a knife. She  

asked these persons for medical assistance and was then  

taken to the local doctor.

8. After her death, a post-mortem examination was  

conducted on Lalitha by Dr. K. Shymala Devi who gave the  

final opinion Exhibit P-9 that Lalitha was raped. However, this  

doctor did not enter the witness box.

9. It may be mentioned that after the appellant ran out of  

the house, he was seen running on the street with blood-

stained clothes by PW-7 N. Visweswara Rao who was returning  

from a temple. While N. Visweswara Rao was passing the  

house of Srimannarayana, he found some people gathered  

over there and saw Lalitha in a pool of blood and Lakshmi  

Narayana, Purnachandra Rao and Venkateswara Rao  

preparing to remove her.  

10. The defence put up by the appellant was that in fact he  

had not committed the crime but had discovered it.

11. On these broad facts, the Trial Court by its order dated  

18th June 2004 passed in Sessions Case No.163/99 found the  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 4 of 15

Page 5

evidence insufficient to convict the appellant of the charge of  

rape or murder.  This view was reversed in appeal by the High  

Court by its judgment and order dated 14th February 2008  

passed in Criminal Appeal No.42 of 2006. The High Court  

convicted the appellant of the crime of rape and murder and  

sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

12. It is under these circumstances that the matter is now  

before us.

Decision of the Trial Court:

13. The analysis of the evidence and the decision of the Trial  

Court leave much to be desired. The Trial Judge has not  

determined any facts, but has only found loop-holes in the  

oral evidence. The primary duty of the Trial Judge is to  

determine the facts and then test the theory put forward by  

the prosecution. In this regard, the Trial Judge has  

unfortunately failed in this duty.  

14. The Trial Court has not considered the events in totality  

but has disjointedly read the statements of the witnesses and  

has picked up minor discrepancies and highlighted them.  The  

result of this approach is that the Trial Court has cast doubt  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 5 of 15

Page 6

on almost every aspect of the case. It has cast doubt on the  

lodging of the first information report; it has doubted the  

arrest of the appellant; the presence of Lakshmi Narayana,  

Purnachandra Rao and Venkateswara Rao at the scene of the  

crime; the testimony of Srimannarayana and Subrahmanyam  

as well as N. Venkateswara Rao.  In other words, the Trial  

Court did not believe any of the material witnesses and  

concluded that the entire story was cooked up to implicate the  

appellant. On this basis, the appellant was acquitted.   

15. However, the Trial Court did not err in its conclusion on  

the allegation of the prosecution that Lalitha was raped.  In  

this regard, the Trial Court noted that Lalitha did not say that  

she was raped and only stated that the appellant caught hold  

of her hand. But, the Trial Court erroneously proceeded on the  

basis that rape can be committed only behind closed doors  

and since there was no evidence that the doors of the house  

were closed, Lalitha could not have been raped.  The Trial  

Court noted that the complaint lodged by Lakshmi Narayana  

did not mention that Lalitha was raped. It also noted that even  

the local doctor Kasi Viswanadham who administered first aid  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 6 of 15

Page 7

did not notice any evidence of rape. The Trial Court failed to  

note that the final medical opinion given by Dr. K. Shymala  

Devi could not be accepted since the doctor did not enter the  

witness box to support the post-mortem report. Be that as it  

may, the Trial Court concluded that Lalitha was not raped.

Decision of the High Court:

16. The High Court disagreed with the Trial Court on every  

aspect of the case.  It was found that the evidence of Lakshmi  

Narayana, Purnachandra Rao and Venkateswara Rao was  

consistent on material issues.  They had seen the appellant in  

blood-stained clothes pushing them and running away from  

the scene of the crime.  In fact, the appellant was also seen  

running with blood stained clothes on the street by N.  

Venkateswara Rao.   

17. The High Court noted that appellant admitted his  

presence at the scene of the crime since he claimed to have  

reached there soon after the crime was committed. The High  

Court found that under these circumstances there was no  

explanation for his conduct of running away from the scene of  

the crime if in fact he had not committed any offence.

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 7 of 15

Page 8

18. The High Court also took into consideration the fact that  

Lalitha, while gasping for life, clearly stated that the appellant  

had hit her with a chutney grinder and all these facts put  

together clearly indicated that the appellant had murdered  

Lalitha.

19. On the issue whether Lalitha had been raped, the High  

Court found that the post mortem report Exhibit P-9  

established that Lalitha was raped and on this basis, the  

conclusion arrived at by the Trial Judge was reversed and the  

appellant convicted for having raped Lalitha.

Submissions:

20. The principal contention of learned counsel for the  

appellant was that the case is one of circumstantial evidence  

and however strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take place  

of proof. There were no eye witnesses to the crime and,  

therefore, it cannot be conclusively said that the appellant had  

murdered Lalitha.  It was also contended that there was no  

evidence that Lalitha had been raped and even in this regard  

the conclusion of the High Court was faulty.  It was finally  

submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that there were  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 8 of 15

Page 9

far too many discrepancies in the evidence of the witnesses, as  

brought out by the Trial Judge, and they could not be ignored.  

The cumulative effect of all these discrepancies casts a doubt  

on the case of the prosecution and the benefit of this must go  

to the appellant.

Discussion:

21. The law on appreciation of circumstantial evidence is  

now too well settled to bear any repetition.  Suffice it to say  

that to secure a conviction on circumstantial 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 high degree of probability that it is  

only the accused and none other who has committed the  

alleged offence. In this regard, reference may be made to  

Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State of A.P., (2012) 6 SCC  

174 (authored by one of us, Swatanter Kumar, J).

22. In our 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  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 9 of 15

Page 10

crime was committed. While doing so, he pushed Lakshmi  

Narayana, Purnachandra Rao and Venkateswara Rao who  

were entering the house on hearing the cries of Lalitha. 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.

23. The presence of the appellant having been conclusively  

established, there should be some reason why he ran away  

from the scene of the crime if in fact he was the one who had  

discovered it and not the one who had committed it. There is  

no explanation for this strange conduct whatsoever. To say  

that the appellant is a rustic villager is neither here nor there.

24. In this context, it is not possible to overlook the fact that  

the appellant had blood-stains on his clothes at that time and  

he was also seen running on the street in that condition  

independently by N. Venkateswara Rao, who reached the  

scene of crime soon thereafter when Lalitha was being taken  

away for administration of first-aid.

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 10 of 15

Page 11

25. The eye witness account, moments after the discovery of  

the crime is so overwhelming, coupled with the conduct of the  

appellant, that only one conclusion is possible which is that  

the murder of Lalitha was committed by the appellant.

26. In addition, it must be appreciated that even Lalitha 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 Lalitha should falsely  

implicate the appellant of such a heinous crime. Lalitha’s  

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 Lalitha moments  

before her death to Lakshmi Narayana, Purnachandra Rao  

and Venkateswara Rao.   

27. In this view of the matter, on an overall consideration of  

all the facts of the case, we have no doubt that the appellant  

alone caused the murder of Lalitha.

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 11 of 15

Page 12

28. On the issue of the appellant having raped Lalitha, we  

find that there is virtually no evidence to this effect except the  

final opinion Exhibit P-9. As noted above, Lalitha did not  

inform Lakshmi Narayana, Purnachandra Rao or  

Venkateswara Rao that she was raped or attempted to be  

raped by the appellant. All that she said was that the  

appellant caught hold of her hand. Thereupon, Lalitha slapped  

the appellant which led him to pick up the chutney grinder  

and hit her on the head and other parts of her body. There  

does not seem to be anything in the testimony of Lakshmi  

Narayana, Purnachandra Rao and Venkateswara Rao to  

suggest that Lalitha was raped or an attempt was made to  

rape her.  

29. The evidence of the doctor Kasi Viswanadham who  

administered first-aid to Lalitha also does not give any  

indication of Lalitha having been violated.  Even the complaint  

made by Lakshmi Narayana to the police does not mention  

anything about Lalitha having been raped.

30. As mentioned above, the only evidence in this regard is  

the final opinion of Dr. K. Shymala Devi which is Exhibit P-9.  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 12 of 15

Page 13

However, in the absence of the doctor having entered the  

witness box, it would not be safe to rely on the medical  

opinion that Lalitha was raped.

31. We are also of the opinion that merely because some  

semen was collected from the person of Lalitha or the trousers  

of the appellant does not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that  

he had raped her.

32. On the basis of the facts on record, we hold that there is  

no evidence to suggest that the appellant had raped Lalitha.

33. We are not inclined to accept the contention of learned  

counsel for the appellant that since there were a large number  

of discrepancies in the testimonies of various witnesses, as  

pointed out by the Trial Judge, the benefit thereof must go to  

the appellant.  

34. The discrepancies noted by the Trial Judge, such as the  

time of recording of the first information report, the time of  

commencement of investigations by the police, the absence of  

any clear evidence to suggest who informed Srimannarayana  

or Subrahmanyam does not take away the substratum of the  

case of the prosecution. What are minor discrepancies and  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 13 of 15

Page 14

their impact has been dealt with in Syed Ahmed v. State of  

Karnataka, (2012) 8 SCC 527 (authored by one of us Lokur,  

J) and we need not repeat the view taken.  

35. The substantive case of the prosecution is that Lalitha  

was murdered in her house. There is no doubt about this, nor  

is there any doubt that almost immediately thereafter (on  

hearing her cries) Lakshmi Narayana, Purnachandra Rao and  

Venkateswara Rao saw the appellant running away from the  

house in blood-stained clothes. There is also no doubt that  

these persons were informed by Lalitha that the appellant hit  

her with a chutney grinder.  If, on these basic facts, an overall  

picture of the events is taken into consideration, it will be clear  

that the discrepancies pointed out pale into insignificance and  

do not affect the substratum of the case for the prosecution.  

36. As we have noted above, the Trial Judge has not thought  

it fit to determine facts but only thought it appropriate to find  

out the smallest inconsistency or disagreement in the  

testimony of the witnesses so as to discredit them. This is not  

the correct approach for the Trial Court to adopt and, in fact,  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 14 of 15

Page 15

the High Court has characterized this as perverse. We say  

nothing on this and leave it at that.  

Conclusion:

37. Under these circumstances, we have no hesitation in  

upholding the view of the High Court that the appellant is  

guilty of committing the murder of Lalitha.  However, we are of  

the opinion that there is no evidence that the appellant had  

raped Lalitha.

38. The appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the  

conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant for an  

offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC is confirmed.

….…….…………………….. J.   (Swatanter Kumar)

….…….…………………….. J.   (Madan B. Lokur)

New Delhi; November 27, 2012  

Crl. Appeal No.393 of 2009  Page 15 of 15