Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Murder Case Based on Circumstantial Evidence: Gorusu Nagaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 23 March 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 245

Judges: R.K. Agrawal, J., Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Gorusu Nagaraju vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. This case explores the extent to which circumstantial evidence can be used to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal proceedings. The bench comprised of Justice R.K. Agrawal and Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre, with the judgment authored by Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre.

Case Background

The case involves the murder of Desineedi Venkateswararao, also known as Venkatesh. The appellant, Gorusu Nagaraju (A-1), was accused along with four other individuals (A-2, A-3, A-4, and A-5) of committing the murder and subsequently attempting to conceal evidence. The prosecution’s case was built on circumstantial evidence, as there were no direct eyewitnesses to the crime. The appellant was convicted by the IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajamundary, for offences under Section 302 (murder) and Section 201 (causing disappearance of evidence of offence) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad upheld this conviction. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge convicted the appellant, Gorusu Nagaraju (A-1), for offences under Section 302 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, while acquitting three other accused (A-2, A-3, and A-5). A-4’s trial was separated due to his absconding. The appellant appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Andhra Pradesh, which dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction. The State did not appeal the acquittal of A-2, A-3, and A-5, thus making their acquittal final. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court by way of special leave.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. It states, “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false information to screen the offender. It states, “Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Additionally, the judgment also refers to Section 235(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, which deals with the procedure for sentencing after a conviction.

Arguments

The appellant’s counsel argued that the evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They challenged the circumstantial evidence and sought to demonstrate inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. However, the specific arguments were not detailed in the judgment. The respondent, representing the State of Andhra Pradesh, argued that the circumstantial evidence was strong and conclusive, forming a complete chain of events that implicated the appellant in the murder. The prosecution relied on the following circumstances:

• ✓ The deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant (A-1).
• ✓ The appellant and the deceased went together to a liquor shop to purchase whisky.
• ✓ The body of the deceased was recovered from a heap of hay with bleeding injuries.
• ✓ The appellant’s fingerprints were found on the whisky bottle and other articles at the scene of the crime.
• ✓ The recovery of the seized articles was made at the instance of the appellant.
• ✓ The appellant had a grudge against the deceased.
• ✓ The appellant failed to explain the circumstances and remained silent when asked.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

• Whether any case is made out to interfere in the impugned judgment of the High Court?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the oral evidence of PW-8, PW-11, PW-12, PW-14, PW-28 and PW-31. The Court also considered the seven circumstances established by the prosecution.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The evidence of PW-8, PW-11, PW-12, PW-14, PW-28 and PW-31 was relied upon by the Court to sustain the conviction.
• The seven circumstances established by the prosecution were considered material and formed the basis of the conviction.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the strong chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The Court noted that the appellant was last seen with the deceased, they went together to purchase liquor, the body was found with injuries, the appellant’s fingerprints were at the scene, and the recovery of articles was made at his instance. Additionally, the appellant’s motive and failure to explain the circumstances weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the arguments presented by the appellant but found them to be without merit. The Court emphasized that it would not interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts unless there was a clear case of perversity or illegality, which was not found in this case. The Supreme Court stated, “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.” The Court also noted, “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 Court concluded, “In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Convictions can be based on strong circumstantial evidence when a complete chain of events is established.
• ✓ Minor contradictions in evidence do not necessarily invalidate the entire testimony.
• ✓ Concurrent findings of lower courts are usually binding on the Supreme Court unless there is perversity or illegality.
• ✓ The accused’s failure to explain incriminating circumstances can be held against them.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There were no specific amendments discussed in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a conviction for murder can be upheld based on strong circumstantial evidence when the chain of events implicating the accused is complete and unbroken. This case reinforces the principle that circumstantial evidence can be as compelling as direct evidence in criminal cases. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction of Gorusu Nagaraju for murder. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment emphasizes the importance of a complete chain of evidence in cases relying on circumstantial proof and reinforces the principle that minor inconsistencies do not invalidate the entire testimony.