Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Upputholla Sreenivasulu alias Seenugadu - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
Decided On : 05-22-57
CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CONFESSION - VOLUNTARY - CORROBORATION - SECTION 27, INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT - ACCUSED - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 201, INDIAN PENAL CODE - CONVICTION - LEGALITY - SENTENCE - EXTENTUATING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Upputholla Srinivasulu alias Seenugadu, was convicted of murder and causing the disappearance of evidence in the death of Alivelamma. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, as the farm servant of the first accused, had taken the deceased to him for sexual intercourse, and that after a quarrel, the first accused and his associates killed the deceased and buried her body in a river bed. The appellant was arrested and gave a confessional statement, but later retracted it, claiming it was obtained under duress.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confessional statement was voluntary and corroborated by other evidence, but that the appellant was not guilty of murder as he did not share the common intention to kill the deceased. However, the court found him guilty of causing the disappearance of evidence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: 1. Whether the confessional statement was voluntary and admissible in evidence. 2. Whether the appellant was guilty of murder under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Whether the appellant was guilty of causing the disappearance of evidence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 4. Whether the conviction under section 201 was legal in the absence of an alternative charge.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the confessional statement was voluntary and admissible in evidence as it was recorded by a magistrate after giving due warnings and time for reflection to the appellant. 2. The court held that the appellant was not guilty of murder as his confessional statement did not indicate that he shared the common intention to kill the deceased. 3. The court held that the appellant was guilty of causing the disappearance of evidence under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code as his confession and the circumstantial evidence established his participation in removing and secreting the deceased's body. 4. The court held that the conviction under section 201 was legal even in the absence of an alternative charge, as the evidence on record was sufficient to establish the appellant's guilt.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the murder charge under section 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, but upheld the conviction under section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the disappearance of evidence. The sentence was reduced from five years rigorous imprisonment to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30.
( 1 ) THIS is a reference under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code, for confirmation of death sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Chittoor. The accused Upputholla Srinivasulu alias Seenugadu has also come in appeal against his conviction under sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, read with section 34, indian Penal Code and sentence of death and five years rigorous imprisonment passed against him. This judgment will govern both the proceedings. The appellant is one of the six accused who were jointly tried for having first murdered one Alivelamma of Krishnareddigaripalli on 10th April, 1956 and then, having caused the disappearance of evidence by burying her dead body in the river bed at Gurralarevu.
( 2 ) THE prosecution story is that the deceased was a mala married woman of attractive features but of loose morals. She had illicit connections with several persons including A-1 to A-4. For a number of years she was in continuous keeping of A-1 who before his mairiage, which took place one year prior to her murder, either used to visit her house or send for her through A-6 (appellant) his farm servant. He was giving her money, clothes and grain. Her husband was a road cooly and could not get enough for a decent living. He had no control over her. He had, therefore, to reconcile himself with his inevitable let.
( 3 ) THE trouble arose when A-1 was married. Now his visits became infrequent, but the deceased who largely depended on him for her living would not leave him. She became defiant and started reminding him of his promises that he would not marry any one and would never leave her. It is said that in order to win him over to her side she even contrived to administer some drug in fowl curry. A-2 to A-4 being interested in A-1 called upon the deceased just a few days previous to the incident of murder to return the fowl which she had stolen for this purpose from the house of A-1. The deceased retorted and exposed her intimacy with a-1 to A-4- This flung the first accused in a violent fit of rage and he threatened her that he will crush her to death if she did not return the fowl within a week. Thus it is said that the deceased s determination to cling on to A-1 and the latter s anxiety to get lid of her provided the strongest motive for the murder of the deceased and that A-6 as A-1 s farm servant was interested in A-1. Curiously enough even after the abovementioned incident A-1 at her request paid the deceased Rs. 10 for her shandy purchases on Tuesday. After she had returned from the shandy, she slept in her house. According to the story of the prosecution on that very night A-6 took her from her house to the custard apple tree in Yerakayya field about 100 yards away from the village where A-1 to A-5 were present. A-1 asked her to lie down and had his sexual intercourse with her. They were still in that po ture when A-11 made signs to the other accused. At this the other accused came from the hiding caught hold of her neck and killed her by pressing the throat and twisting her neck. Then her dead body was carried to Pincha River bed at gurralarevu and was buried in the sand.
( 4 ) THE husband of the deceased having found his wife missing, reported the matter eventually on 12th April, 1956. The police arrived at the place and on 14th April, 1956 in the morning arrested Accused No. 6. On the information given by him, the dead body was recovered from Gurralarevu with her sari, ravika and other things nearby. Then the confefsional statement of the accused was got recorded and the charge-sheet was laid after the arrest of the other accused. All the accused denied the charges against them. A-6 went back on his confessional statement and said that it was obtained under the threat and inducement of the police. He denied to have given any information which resulted in the recovery of the dead body.
( 5 ) THE learned Sessions Judge after examining 16 witnesses came to the conclusion that the confessional stateme
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
