Back
2009(6) Supreme 188
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.B. Sinha and R.M. Lodha, JJ.
State of Andhra Pradesh — Appellant
versus
S. Swarnalatha & Ors. — Respondents
Criminal Appeal Nos. 315-316 of 2002
Decided on : 04-08-2009
Facts of the Case :
1. Respondent accused persons were prosecuted for entering into a conspiracy with each other to commit murder of one B and his wife and for committing murder of deceased persons by strangulating them and after ransacking their house fleeing away with their gold.Prosecution case that deceased persons were in laws of accused 1. Accused 1 made a confession before PW6 that as she was being harassed by her parents-in-law, she had complained thereabout to her uncle, the accused No.2. She also informed that her uncle had asked her as to whether her parents-in-law were to be killed to which proposal she agreed .On the date of occurrence all the accused persons came to house of accused1 and strangulated deceased persons by putting pillow and a blanket over their face. There being no eye-witness to the occurrence, entire prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence. In proving its case against the respondents, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW3 the driver of a taxi and PW6 son-in-law of the deceased. Trial Court convicted accused persons However on appeal High Court recorded a judgment of acquittal.
2. Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
There was no evidence to show that accused 1 was present in her house at the relevant time. No reason was assigned by prosecution as to why extra judicial confession would be made by accused1before the son-in-law of deceased, particularly when PW6 had admitted in no uncertain terms that family of deceased was not in cordial terms with him. Specific admission of PW6 that prior to the making of confession to him, accused .1 never talked to him. Why she, instead of her husband, would confide in PW 6, was beyond all comprehension. In the Said situation, extra judicial confession purported to have been made by accused 1 to PW6 was held doubtful. No reason was assigned by Investigating officer for delay in recording statements of PW3 and PW6. High Court had recorded a judgment of acquittal. The judgment of High Court was a well reasoned one. The view taken by High Court being a plausible one, no interference was warranted with same. Appeals were dismissed.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
S.B. Sinha, J.—
1. The State of Andhra Pradesh is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order dated 2.8.2001 whereby and whereunder a judgment of acquittal was recorded upon setting aside a judgment of conviction and sentence dated 19.3.2001 passed by the Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.331 of 1998.
2. Respondents herein were accused of entering into a conspiracy with each other to commit murder of one Bal Reddy and his wife Kalavathi. They were in-laws of the accused No.1. Murder of Bal Reddy and his wife Kalavathi were committed at about 2.30 pm on 3.12.1997. Allegedly accused No.1 (the daughter-in-law of the deceased), with a view to cause disappearance of the evidence also give a false information with an intention to save the offenders from legal punishment.
Indisputably, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. In proving its case against the respondents, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of PW3 (the driver of a taxi) and PW6 (son-in-law of the deceased).
The First Information Report was lodged by one G. Damodar Reddy (son of the deceased and husband of the accused No.1). According to him, on the aforementioned day and time, five persons had come to his house. They sat with his father in the drawing room for about half an hour. Later they wanted to have tea whereupon his father asked his wife to get five cups of tea. Tea was prepared by the accused No. 1. After taking tea, they allegedly brought his father to the TV room and pressed the mouth of both
of his parents. Some of them tied the legs and hands as well as neck of his parents with clothes as a result whereof they died. They asked his wife to hand over to them the keys of the almirah kept in the said room and on receipt thereof they ransacked the same. They thereafter came to his room and with the key offered by his wife, another almirah was opened and ransacked. The accused took away gold, Pustela thadu and Kammalu from his wife. They also took gold Pustela Thadu from the neck of his mother. While going out, they tied the hands, legs and mouth of his wife also. They had cut the telephone wire and bolted the TV room door and drawing room door from outside. His wife lost her consciousness. At about 5.00 pm, she regained consciousness and untied herself. She called the tenant of a portion of the house Tulasi by name through the window whereafter the latter informed him about the incident on phone whereupon he rushed back to his house. According to his wife, the culprits were aged between 25 to 32 years.
3. On the basis of said statements, a first information report was recorded. Allegedly on or about 4.1.1998, the accused No.1 made a confession before G. Sukender (PW6) when he allegedly had gone to the house of the deceased in absence of Damodar Reddy. She is said to have told him that as she was being harassed by her parents-in-law, she had complained thereabout to her uncle, the accused No.2. She also informed that her uncle had asked her as to whether her parents-in-law were to be killed to which proposal she agreed and promised to inform them the date on which they can be killed.
In terms of the said conspiracy, as information was sent to the accused No.2 by the accused No.1.
PW6 was also told that accused No.2 had asked for some money to which she stated that she would give gold ornaments to them. Pursuant thereto five persons came in a car at about 2.30 pm on 3.12.1997. They were served with tea and with the help of telephone wire, all the accused strangulated Bal Reddy and Kalavathi as also by putting pillow and a blanket over the face. 50 tolas of gold was given to them. She had also given her gold Pusthalatadu to accused No.2 on being asked. During the course of the incident, they tied her also with a saree.
4. PW6 thereafter took accused No.1 to CCS, Hyderabad and handed her over to the Inspector of Police (PW14). She wa
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
