Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : BASI REDDI, MOHD.MIRZA
VELAGA LAKSHMAMMA - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 11-26-65
CRIMINAL APPEAL - ENHANCEMENT OF SENTENCE - SECTION 302, 302 READ WITH 109 I. P. C. - SODIUM NITRITE POISONING - JUDICIAL CONFESSION - VOLUNTARY STATEMENT - CORROBORATION - MEDICAL EVIDENCE - CHEMICAL EXAMINER'S REPORT - CONVICTION AND SENTENCE UPHELD - CRIMINAL REVISION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Velaga Lakshmamma, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for administering sodium nitrite to her husband, causing his death. The second appellant, Peram Venkata Subbaiah, was convicted of abetment of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for supplying sodium nitrite to the first appellant. Both appellants appealed against their convictions and sentences, and the Public Prosecutor filed a criminal revision case for enhancement of the sentence passed on the first appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the first appellant had voluntarily confessed to administering poison to her husband, which was corroborated by medical evidence, the Chemical Examiner's report, and the testimony of eyewitnesses. The court also found that there was no evidence to connect the second appellant with the crime of abetment of murder.
Issues: 1. Whether the first appellant's confession was voluntary and admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the first appellant had administered poison to her husband, causing his death. 3. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that the second appellant had abetted the first appellant in the commission of murder.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the first appellant's confession was voluntary and admissible in evidence, as it was recorded in accordance with the provisions of Section 164 Cr. P. C., and there was no evidence to suggest that it was made under duress or coercion. 2. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to prove that the first appellant had administered poison to her husband, causing his death, as it was corroborated by medical evidence, the Chemical Examiner's report, and the testimony of eyewitnesses. 3. The court held that there was no evidence to connect the second appellant with the crime of abetment of murder, as the testimony of the prosecution witnesses was unreliable and the evidence of the first appellant's confession could not be used against the second appellant.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the first appellant's appeal and upheld her conviction and sentence. The court also dismissed the criminal revision case filed by the Public Prosecutor for enhancement of the sentence passed on the first appellant.
( 1 ) BEFORE we deal with the case proper, we should like to place on record what has happened in this case before it was actually heard yesterday, so that this sort of thing does not happen again m this Court, This is a young High Court and it, of the utmost importance that proper standards are maintained and any attempt from any quarter to lower the standards, must be nipped in he bud in the interests of the orderly administration of justice in the State. By a judgment dated October 16. 1963, the Sessions Judge of Guntur convicted two persons by names Velaga Lakshmamma and Peram Venkata Subbaiah the first of whom is a woman-of murder and of abetment of murder respectively, and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. The two accused appealed to this Court against-their convictions and sentences; the appeal was numbered as Criminal Appeal No. 33 of 1964 and in the appeal a Memorandum of Appearance was filed by two Advocates Mr. T. V. Sarma and Mr. G. S. Dwarakeswara Rao. The Memorandum of Appearance reads thus: [omitted]. The appeal came up for admission before a Division Bench consisting of jaganmohan Reddy and Venkatesam, JJ. on January 24, 1964. The learned judges admitted the appeal, and at the same time directed notices to issue to the appellants to show cause why the sentence of life imprisonment awarded to each of them, should not be enhanced to one of death. This takew-up matter was numbered as Criminal Revision Case No. 51 of 1964. In this revision also, the same two Advocates, namely, Mr. T. V. Sarma and Mr. G. S. Dwarakeswara Rao filed their appearance on behalf of the accused on October 27, 1965. The memorandum of Appearance filed by them was similar to the one filed in the appeal and they declared that they had been duly instructed to appear for the accused.
( 2 ) THE criminal appeal and the criminal revision case were added in the Judges list on November 1, 1965 and they continued to appear in the list day after day. (we shall hereafter refer to them as "the case") on Thursday, November 18, the case was first in rhe list for hearing before us (Basi Reddy and Mohamed Mirza, JJ) after two judgments and admissions, before we started the day s work, Mr. T. V. Sarma, the senior of the two advocats on record in the case, made a request that as he and his junior wished to withdraw their appearance from the case, the case may be adjourned for two weeks. We asked the Advocate why he had. not withdrawn his appearance earlier. There was no answer. We then asked him why he wanted to withdraw his appearance at the eleventh hour. He told us that he could not disclose the reasons. We refused to adjourn the case, firstly because the case has been pending for nearly two years; secondly because the accused were not on bail; thirdly; because there was an enhancement petition hanging over the heads of the accuse like the sword of Damocles; and last but not least, the Advocate did not tell u why he and his junior wanted to withdraw from the case at the last minute we told the Advocate that either he or his junior must go on with the cas when it was called, failing which we would report the conduct of the Advocate to the Bar Council, and appoint a competent lawyer as an "amicus curiae" am proceed with the case. All this happened on the forenoon of Thursday, November 18. The dictation of the two judgments in Court took the whole day and u the case was not reached that day.
( 3 ) BEFORE we rose for the day, however, we felt that it would be better if with had the accused produced before us from jail so that we could tell them what had (happened and find out what they proposed to do if their Advocates did not appear in the case-whether they wanted some reasonable time to engage another advocate, or whether they wanted the Court to appoint an Advocate to appear for them. So we gave necessary directions and ordered that the case should stand out of the list on Friday and be added as first in the list on Mond
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
