Madala Venkata Narsimha Rao vs State Of A.P

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 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.

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 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.

11. On these broad facts, the Trial Court by its order dated 18th June 2004 passed in Sessions Case No.163/99 found the 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.

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.

30. As mentioned above, the only evidence in this regard is the final opinion of Dr. K. Shymala Devi which is Exhibit P-9. 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.

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.

(Madan B. Lokur) New Delhi;

November 27, 2012