Independent witnesses for the alleged confession not examined.

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.

The sole accused in S.C.No.109 of 2009 on the file of the III Additional Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, filed this appeal, feeling aggrieved by the conviction and sentence ordered against him by the trial Court through judgment dated 24.09.2009.

The prosecution against the accused commenced with the submission of a complaint-Ex.P.1 by P.W.1 before the Station House Officer, Medaram Police Station. P.W.1 complained that his brother Laxminarayana, the deceased, was involved in a case of theft of iron scrap in the limits of Bellampalli Police Station and the accused herein, his cousin brother, is also involved in the said case. All the accused therein were said to be attending the Court at Asifabad now and then. On 12.12.2005, the accused and the deceased were said to have attended the Court and thereafter, proceeded to the house of their maternal aunt and thereafter, to the house of their maternal grand mother but ever since then, the whereabouts of the deceased were not known. He suspected the involvement of the accused for the disappearance of his brother and prayed for action in that behalf.

A case was registered and is said to have been handed over to C.I of Police-P.W.15. In the course of investigation, the accused is said to have been nabbed and that he has confessed in the presence of P.Ws.11 and 14 that he committed the murder of the deceased and buried the dead body at a particular place. The police and officials of the Revenue Department are said to have followed the accused to a place shown by him and when it was dug, the skeleton with shoes and clothes on it, is said to have been exhumed. Based upon the result of the further investigation, charge sheet was filed and accordingly, a charge was framed.

To prove its case, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 16 and Exs.P.1 to P.15 were filed. On behalf of the defence, though none was examined, Ex.D.1 was filed. M.Os.1 to 8 were also taken on record.

Through its judgment, dated 24.09.2009, the trial Court convicted the accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for six months. He was also convicted of the offence punishable under Section 201 I.P.C. and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three years and pay fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Hence, this appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the very submission of the complaint by P.W.1 was 14 months after the so-called date of missing of the deceased and except expressing some vague suspicion about the involvement of the accused, no other facts were mentioned. He contends that the confession said to have been extracted from the accused is contrary to law and everything was stage-managed. Learned counsel further submits that though the mortal remains said to have been recovered at the instance of the accused, were sent for DNA test, no result in favour of the prosecution has emerged and that would have been sufficient for acquittal of the accused.

The learned Public Prosecutor, on the other hand, submits that the delay in filing of the complaint was on account of the fact that P.W.1 was not sure as to what happened to his brother and as long as it is not disputed that the accused and the deceased were moving together, the finding recorded by the trial Court cannot be found fault with.He further submits that the procedure prescribed by law was followed in the context of recording the confessional statement and the recovery effected on the clues given by the accused would certainly clinch the case against him. As regards the result of the DNA test, the learned counsel submits that the helplessness expressed by the Agency cannot be a factor to doubt the truth of the case of the prosecution.

This is a typical case where a