{"id":112307,"date":"2003-08-01T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-07-31T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003"},"modified":"2017-12-29T02:54:01","modified_gmt":"2017-12-28T21:24:01","slug":"golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003","title":{"rendered":"Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003<\/div>\n
Author: Sema<\/div>\n
Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, H.K.Sema.<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  838 of 2002\n\nPETITIONER:\nGolakonda Venkateswara Rao\t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nRESPONDENT:\nVs.\n\nState of Andhra Pradesh \t\t\t\t\t\n\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/08\/2003\n\nBENCH:\nDORAISWAMY RAJU & H.K.SEMA.\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
SEMA,J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe appellant was put to trial for an offence punishable under <\/p>\n
Sections 376, 302 and 201 IPC before Sessions Judge, Krishna Division at <\/p>\n
Machilipatnam in Sessions Case No 110 of 1998.  After the trial, the learned <\/p>\n
Sessions Judge found the appellant not guilty under Sections 376 and 201 <\/p>\n
IPC and he was accordingly acquitted of the charges under the aforesaid <\/p>\n
Sections.  The learned Sessions Judge, however, found the appellant guilty <\/p>\n
under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life <\/p>\n
and also to pay a fine of Rs.100\/- and in default to undergo simple <\/p>\n
imprisonment for one month.  The conviction and the sentence recorded by <\/p>\n
the learned Sessions Judge were confirmed by the High Court by the <\/p>\n
impugned judgment under challenge.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t   Briefly stated the facts leading to the filing of the present <\/p>\n
appeal are that the appellant, a resident of Sultanagaram and a neighbour of <\/p>\n
the deceased \u2013 Devanaboyina  Lakshmi, stated to be a minor girl aged 15-16 <\/p>\n
years accosted the deceased about  two months prior to the incident on <\/p>\n
14.7.1996. It is stated that the deceased went to graze goats at water canal <\/p>\n
bund.  The appellant noticed the deceased going towards the water canal <\/p>\n
bund, followed her, and began to talk with her with an evil eye.   This fact is <\/p>\n
stated to have been witnessed by PW-5 Sala Ankamma.  It is also stated that <\/p>\n
having found no one present around the area, the appellant caught the <\/p>\n
deceased, dragged her to a nearby unused shed, gagged her mouth and <\/p>\n
committed rape on her against her will.  It is also alleged that all the <\/p>\n
resistance put up by the victim girl went in vain and the accused over-<\/p>\n
powered the girl.  It is further disclosed, in the process of struggle the upper <\/p>\n
and inner langa of the deceased were torn.  When the appellant left the <\/p>\n
deceased alone and was about to part from the place of occurrence, the <\/p>\n
deceased allegedly was said to have told the appellant that she would bring <\/p>\n
the matter to the notice of villagers and police.  Being frightened by this <\/p>\n
disclosure, it is alleged, the appellant chased her, caught her and threw her <\/p>\n
into the well situated in the northeastern corner of the dibba.  The appellant <\/p>\n
also kept a stone in the well so as to prevent the body from floating and also <\/p>\n
put some caveltry creepers (Guprapu Dekka) with an intention to hide the <\/p>\n
offence.  It is also alleged that the appellant had buried the torn clothes of <\/p>\n
the deceased.  Since the deceased did not return by the evening, her kith and <\/p>\n
kin started searching for her without any result.    Finally, PW-1 (author of <\/p>\n
FIR and foster father of the deceased), to whom the deceased was given in <\/p>\n
adoption by PW-2, came to know through PW-5 Sala Ankamma that two <\/p>\n
months prior to the date of missing i.e. 14.7.1996 she noticed the appellant <\/p>\n
talking with the deceased. Upon this information being given, PW-1 <\/p>\n
approached the village elders, one of whom, Rajarao was examined as PW-<\/p>\n
4.  On being asked by the village elders the appellant allegedly confessed the <\/p>\n
guilt of committing rape on the deceased and throwing her into the well.  It <\/p>\n
is only after this information, PW-1 lodged the FIR (Exhibit P-1).  In course <\/p>\n
of investigation the prosecution examined as many as 12 PWs and marked <\/p>\n
Exhibits P-1 to P-29 and M.Os. 1-8.  None of the DWs were examined on <\/p>\n
behalf of the appellant.  He, however, pointed out three contradictions in the <\/p>\n
evidence of PW-5 marked Exhibits D-6 to D-8.  After the conclusion of the <\/p>\n
trial, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty as noticed above.           <\/p>\n
\tUndisputedly, there is no eyewitness to the occurrence and conviction <\/p>\n
of the appellant is solely based on the circumstantial evidence. <\/p>\n
\tThe learned Sessions Judge, and in our view correctly, has formulated <\/p>\n
the following circumstantial evidence appearing against the appellant on <\/p>\n
appreciation of evidence:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\t“The identity of the deceased was established;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tThe deceased was last seen in the company of the accused;<\/p>\n
(iii)\tThe accused made an extra judicial confession before P.W.4 and <\/p>\n
another village elder to the effect that he committed rape on the <\/p>\n
victim, killed her and threw her in the well;\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tRecovery of the articles and skeletal remains of the deceased pursuant <\/p>\n
to the disclosures of the information furnished by the accused himself; <\/p>\n
and <\/p>\n
(v)\tThe accused failed to adduce any evidence to the contra to prove the <\/p>\n
so-called oblique motive of P.Ws. 4 and 6 to implicate him in a false <\/p>\n
case nor state anything mitigating in his Sec.313 Cr.P.C. a false <\/p>\n
wholesale denial.”\n<\/p>\n
The learned Sessions Judge having regard to and after considering the <\/p>\n
evidence on record and exhibits found circumstances nos. 1, 2 and 4 well <\/p>\n
established against the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
\tBy now it is well settled principle of law that in cases where the <\/p>\n
evidence is purely circumstantial in nature, the facts and circumstances from <\/p>\n
which the conclusion of guilt is sought to be drawn must be fully established <\/p>\n
beyond any reasonable doubt and such circumstances must be consistent and <\/p>\n
unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and the chain of circumstances <\/p>\n
must be established by the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
\tMr. Mahendra Anand, learned senior counsel, vehemently submits <\/p>\n
that the prosecution has not established the aforesaid circumstances <\/p>\n
appearing against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts.  It is his <\/p>\n
contention that the identity of the deceased was not established beyond all <\/p>\n
reasonable doubts inasmuch as the Assistant Director (F.S.L), who issued <\/p>\n
Exhibit P-29, was not examined.  Undisputedly, Exhibit P-29 <\/p>\n
Superimposition Report was sent to the Regional Forensic Science <\/p>\n
Laboratory, Vijayawada.  The Assistant Director, who issued Exhibit P-29 <\/p>\n
certified that the skull in item 1(one) could have belonged to the person in <\/p>\n
the photograph in item No.2(two). Court would not be oblivious of the fact <\/p>\n
that the identity of the deceased was got tested by superimposition of the <\/p>\n
skeletal remains of the deceased conducted with reference to the photograph <\/p>\n
of the deceased.  PW-12 deposed that he had sent the photograph of the <\/p>\n
deceased for superimposition test by the Forensic Science Laboratory, <\/p>\n
Hyderabad.  PW-7 Dr.S.Rama Brahmam, conducted the post-mortem <\/p>\n
examination of skeletal remains (Exhibit P-7).  In the said report he gave the <\/p>\n
age of the deceased between 15 \u2013 16 years based on his medical knowledge.   <\/p>\n
PW-9 Dr.P.Vijaya Kumar, a professor and scientist, working in the forensic <\/p>\n
laboratory examined the skeletal remains in the court and stated that they <\/p>\n
showed the feminine characteristics and the age of the person concerned <\/p>\n
would be around 15 to 16 years.  This apart, Exhibit P-9 is the opinion of the <\/p>\n
forensic expert which also makes it abundantly clear that the skull belonged <\/p>\n
to a human-being of female sex aged 15 or 16 years.  In the facts and <\/p>\n
circumstances stated above, we have no doubt in our mind, that the identity <\/p>\n
of the deceased is well established beyond all reasonable doubts and non-<\/p>\n
examination of Assistant Director who issued Exhibit P-29 would itself <\/p>\n
throw away the otherwise reliable and trustworthy evidence of PWs 7, 9 and <\/p>\n
12.  We have no reason to take a view different from the view taken by two <\/p>\n
courts concurrently.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe next contention of Mr. Anand, learned senior counsel, is that last <\/p>\n
seen of the deceased with the appellant by PW-5 has not been established by <\/p>\n
convincing evidence having regard to the discrepancies appearing in the <\/p>\n
testimony of PW-5.  It is the contention of the learned counsel for the <\/p>\n
appellant that in the FIR lodged by PW-1 (Exhibit P-1) it is stated that two <\/p>\n
months prior of her death she was missing and this information was given to <\/p>\n
them by PW-5 Sala Ankamma that about 11.00 A.M. she saw the deceased <\/p>\n
talking with the appellant at Puranamvari Cheruvu whereas PW-5 Sala <\/p>\n
Ankamma when examined before the Court has stated as under:-<\/p>\n
“The deceased died about 3 years ago.  The deceased was <\/p>\n
found missing 3 months prior to her death.  At that time <\/p>\n
at about 3-00 P.M., I had been to canal bank for <\/p>\n
collecting firewood.  There I found the accused and the <\/p>\n
deceased talking with each other.  I told the fact of seeing <\/p>\n
the accused and the deceased talking with each other two <\/p>\n
months ago to the parents of the deceased.”\n<\/p>\n
Learned Counsel contended that there is discrepancy in Exhibit P-1 <\/p>\n
and in the statement of PW-5 between 3 months and 2 months and also <\/p>\n
11.00 A.M. and 3 P.M.  Apart, the discrepancy as pointed out is not of a <\/p>\n
substantial character which would throw out the prosecution story, as <\/p>\n
unbelievable. The fact remains that the incident said to have occurred on <\/p>\n
14.7.1996 and PW-5 was examined on 23.5.2000 after a long gap of four <\/p>\n
years be taken note of.   It is not expected from a rustic village woman to <\/p>\n
have remembered the incident that had taken place after a lapse of four years <\/p>\n
with mathematical precision.  It is but quite natural that human memories are <\/p>\n
apt to blur with the passage of time.  This witness subsequently had admitted <\/p>\n
that she does not remember the day on which the appellant and the deceased <\/p>\n
were talking to each other but she however reaffirmed that they were talking <\/p>\n
to each other sitting at the place.  The fact remains that PW-5 last saw the <\/p>\n
deceased and the appellant together and this fact has not been demolished <\/p>\n
and remains unimpeached.   The appellant, as already noticed, brought to the <\/p>\n
notice of the Court three contradictions in the evidence of PW-5 marked as <\/p>\n
Exhibits D-6 to D-8.  Exhibit D-6 is with regard to contradiction in the <\/p>\n
evidence of PW-5 that PW-5 saw the deceased last being in the company of <\/p>\n
the accused three months ago whereas in Exhibit P-1, PW-1 has stated that <\/p>\n
the deceased was found missing only two months prior to the discovery of <\/p>\n
death.   Exhibits D-7 and D-8 relate to the contradictions in the statement of <\/p>\n
PW-5 which suggest that her mother, herself and her sister happened to be at <\/p>\n
the place of incident whereas in her cross-examination she stated that she <\/p>\n
alone had seen the deceased and the accused together at that point of time.  <\/p>\n
We have gone through the contents of Exhibits D-6 to D-8 which have been <\/p>\n
placed on record and we are in full agreement with the concurrent finding of <\/p>\n
two courts that the contents of Exhibits D-6 to D-8 do not relate to PW-5  <\/p>\n
having seen the deceased and the appellant together.  Therefore, Exhibits D-<\/p>\n
6 to D-8 do not in any way detract from the truth of the assertion of PW-5 <\/p>\n
that she alone had seen.   The trial court has not placed reliance on the extra <\/p>\n
judicial confession while convicting the appellant.  This question, therefore, <\/p>\n
do not detain us any longer.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tThe next important circumstance, which weighed with the trial <\/p>\n
court to base the conviction, is the recovery of MOs 1-8 at the disclosure <\/p>\n
statement furnished by the accused.  The recovery of MOs is preceded by <\/p>\n
the disclosure statement made by the appellant (Exhibit P-2) which is in his <\/p>\n
mother tongue (Telgu).  The disclosure statement given by the appellant is <\/p>\n
carved out from the mediator’s report.   The translated version of admissible <\/p>\n
portion quoted by the learned Trial Judge reads as follows:-<\/p>\n
“If you come with me, the day how Lakshmi was raped <\/p>\n
at the bank of Puranam Lake and how Lakshmi was <\/p>\n
forcibly thrown in the well and killed and at that place in <\/p>\n
what clothes she was and which Lange (Paiticot) she <\/p>\n
wear and Lange’s pieces were digged and close down in <\/p>\n
the earth and that place I can show as he said\u2026”\n<\/p>\n
           (It is stated in the court that translation is not happily drafted)<\/p>\n
        Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act provides that only so much of <\/p>\n
the information as distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered is <\/p>\n
admissible.  In the instant case the recovery (Exhibit P-2) was made on the <\/p>\n
basis of the disclosure statement furnished by the appellant.  The disclosure <\/p>\n
statement (Exhibit P-2) is proved by the mediator examined as PW-6 who is <\/p>\n
the village Administrative Officer and also the Inspector of Police examined <\/p>\n
as PW-12.  PW-6 has stated that on the basis of disclosure statement <\/p>\n
(Exhibit P-2) the accused led the party to a place called “Purnamvari Dibba” <\/p>\n
where they found a dilapidated tin roofed shed and a well.  From inside the <\/p>\n
well hair, hairpins, bangles were recovered and the police seized those <\/p>\n
articles under the cover of Ext.P-3. M.O.3 is the hair, MO.4 is the cement <\/p>\n
pole piece MO.5 is the bones.  Then the accused led the party to a spot <\/p>\n
behind the tin roofed shed.  The accused then dug out and unearthed the <\/p>\n
piece of langa. M.O.6 is the piece of blue langa and M.O.7 is the pieces of <\/p>\n
green langa.  MO.8 is the pieces of mithai coloured langa.<\/p>\n
\tPW-12 arrested the appellant and questioned him.  He stated that on <\/p>\n
being interrogated in the presence of PW-6 the appellant offered to show the <\/p>\n
place of occurrence and also where the dead body was thrown.  He also <\/p>\n
offered to show the clothes of the deceased.  Pursuant to the disclosure, he <\/p>\n
took the party to the well and disclosed that the body had been thrown into <\/p>\n
the well where there was a water level of 6-1\/2 feet and with the help of <\/p>\n
swimmers the body was recovered from the well marked as M.O.3 and <\/p>\n
M.O.5 i.e. hair and skeletal remains respectively.  They also recovered white <\/p>\n
plastic bangles and M.O.1 Jacket.  They also recovered cement pole piece <\/p>\n
(survey stone) M.O.4.  The said stone stated to have been kept to prevent the <\/p>\n
body from floating.  He further stated that the accused then led them to a <\/p>\n
place towards western side of nearby shed and dug out a spot from where <\/p>\n
pieces of langa were retrieved marked as MO2, MO-6 and MO-8.<\/p>\n
\tPW-3, who is no other than the foster mother of the deceased has <\/p>\n
stated that when the deceased left the house for the last time she was <\/p>\n
wearing clothes MO.1 and MO.2.  It is a matter of common knowledge that <\/p>\n
women have an inherent sense of identifying the wearing apparels of their <\/p>\n
daughters who are attached to the mother, particularly commonly attire worn <\/p>\n
by them in the house.  We have no doubt in our mind, therefore, that <\/p>\n
wearing apparels of the deceased dug out from the place at the disclosure of <\/p>\n
the appellant and identified by PW-3 are the wearing apparels of the <\/p>\n
deceased at the time she left the house and subsequently missing. <\/p>\n
\tLearned counsel for the appellant, contended that the disclosure <\/p>\n
statement and recovery of the articles is doubtful and no reliance can be <\/p>\n
placed on such disclosure statement and recovery of the MOs.  He further <\/p>\n
contended that the materials recovered were not sealed by the police.  <\/p>\n
Hairpin and bangles said to have been recovered were not produced before <\/p>\n
the Court and these circumstances will make, all the more. recovery <\/p>\n
doubtful.  Counsel relied on the decision of this Court rendered in <\/p>\n
Jackaran Singh vs     State of Punjab (AIR<\/a> 1995 SC 2345), wherein  <\/p>\n
in paragraph 8 at page SC 2347, it was pointed out that the disclosure <\/p>\n
statement inspires no confidence because none of the two panch witnesses <\/p>\n
Yash Pal and Sukhdev Singh have been examined at the Trial and secondly <\/p>\n
because the disclosure statement does not bear the signatures or the thumb <\/p>\n
impression of the appellant and also the recovery memo does not bear the <\/p>\n
signatures or thumb impression of the accused. Every case has to be decided <\/p>\n
on its own facts.   The facts of that case do not fit in the facts of the case at <\/p>\n
hand.  In the present case as already noticed PW-6 and PW-12 were <\/p>\n
examined to prove the disclosure as well as the recovery pursuant to the <\/p>\n
disclosure statement of the appellant.  In the instant case, while it is true that <\/p>\n
neither the disclosure statement nor the recovery memo bear the signatures <\/p>\n
of the accused but the fact remains that pursuant to the disclosure statement <\/p>\n
MOs have been recovered from the well and dug out from a place which is <\/p>\n
pointed out by the appellant leaves no manner of doubt that the recovery of <\/p>\n
MOs has been made on the basis of voluntary disclosure statement.  In <\/p>\n
Jackaran Singh’s case (supra) the recovery memo Ex.P.9\/A relates to <\/p>\n
revolver and the cartridges.  There the appellant had denied the ownership of <\/p>\n
the crime revolver and the prosecution had led no evidence to show that the <\/p>\n
crime weapon belonged to the appellant.  The observation of this Court was <\/p>\n
in that context. In the instant case, as already noticed, the recovery is <\/p>\n
pursuant to the disclosure statement offered by the appellant.  The fact that <\/p>\n
the recovery is in consequence of the information given is fortified and <\/p>\n
confirmed by the discovery of wearing apparel and skeletal remains of the <\/p>\n
deceased which leads to believe that information and the statement cannot be <\/p>\n
false.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe provisions of Section 27 of the Evidence Act are based on the <\/p>\n
view that if a fact is actually discovered in consequence of information <\/p>\n
given, some guarantee is afforded thereby that the information was true and <\/p>\n
consequently the said information can safely be allowed to be given in <\/p>\n
evidence because if such an information is further fortified and confirmed by <\/p>\n
the discovery of articles or the instrument of crime and which leads to the <\/p>\n
belief that the information about the confession made as to the articles of <\/p>\n
crime cannot be false. (See S.C.Bahri     vs.   State of Bihar, (AIR<\/a> 1994 SC <\/p>\n
2420 at page  SC 2448).  As already noticed M.O.3, M.O.4 and M.O.5 were <\/p>\n
retrieved from the well with the help of swimmers, as there was a water level <\/p>\n
of 6-1\/2 feet.  MO.2 MO.6 and MO.8 are the pieces of langa dug out and <\/p>\n
unearthed at the disclosure of the appellant.  These materials were not found <\/p>\n
lying on the surface of the ground but they were found inside the well, which <\/p>\n
is 6-1\/2 deep of water, with the help of swimmers and were found after <\/p>\n
being dug out and unearthed only after the place was pointed out by the <\/p>\n
appellant. It is not found from the place where public can have free access.  <\/p>\n
Therefore, there is no reasonable apprehension with the material exhibits <\/p>\n
being planted to rope in the appellant with the crime.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tMr. Anand next contended that the Investigating Officer PW-12 <\/p>\n
did not have fixed the Lac seal on the particulars so recovered and no <\/p>\n
evidentiary value can be attached to the recovery.  We are unable to <\/p>\n
countenance with the contention of the learned counsel because no where in <\/p>\n
the statement of PW-12 he has stated that he has not fixed a seal on the <\/p>\n
material so seized.  This question was also not put to PW-12 in his cross-<\/p>\n
examination.  At the same time PW-6 has stated that the police took away all <\/p>\n
the articles seized along with them one hour after completing Ext.P-3.  In <\/p>\n
Ext.P-3 there is a mention about the pieces of langa being packed there itself <\/p>\n
and affixing the chits with the signatures of the mediators on that packet.   <\/p>\n
\tLastly, it is contended by Mr. Anand that hair pins and bangles so <\/p>\n
recovered at the disclosure statement of the appellant were not produced <\/p>\n
before the Court.  Non-production of hairpins and bangles before the Court <\/p>\n
would not by itself disclose tampering of evidence with regard to the <\/p>\n
recovery of MOs inasmuch as MOs 1-8 as noticed above have been proved <\/p>\n
beyond all reasonable doubts.  Non-production of hairpins and bangles <\/p>\n
before the Court during the course of trial in the facts and circumstances as <\/p>\n
aforestated become inconsequential.  No prejudice also seems to have been <\/p>\n
caused to the appellant for non-production of hairpins and bangles. <\/p>\n
\tFor the aforestated reasons we do not find any infirmity in the order <\/p>\n
under challenge.  The appeal, therefore, fails and stands dismissed.  <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003 Author: Sema Bench: Doraiswamy Raju, H.K.Sema. CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 838 of 2002 PETITIONER: Golakonda Venkateswara Rao RESPONDENT: Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01\/08\/2003 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & H.K.SEMA. JUDGMENT: J U D G M E […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-112307","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nGolakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-12-28T21:24:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T21:24:01+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003\"},\"wordCount\":3331,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003\",\"name\":\"Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-12-28T21:24:01+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-12-28T21:24:01+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003","datePublished":"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T21:24:01+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003"},"wordCount":3331,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003","name":"Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-07-31T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-12-28T21:24:01+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/golakonda-venkateswara-rao-vs-state-of-andhra-pradesh-on-1-august-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Golakonda Venkateswara Rao vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 1 August, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112307","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=112307"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/112307\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=112307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=112307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=112307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}