IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, K. MANMADHA RAO, JJ.
Pasila Prasad, Visakhapatnam DT - Petitioner
Versus
State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1340 of 2014
Decided On : 30-12-2021
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 304 Part-II - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 207, 209, 313, 428 - Criminal Rules of Practice - Rule 72 – Appeal – Offence of Murder - Extra-judicial confession - Whether the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the accused beyond doubt - Whether the trial court was right in convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C – Held, case of the appellant/accused falls squarely under Section 304 Part-II of IPC. Hence, the conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside and the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part-II IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years. The period undergone by the accused as remand prisoner shall be given set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the appellant/accused shall be set at liberty forthwith on completion of seven years imprisonment, if not required in connection with any other case or crime - Appeal allowed partly.
JUDGMENT :
[C. Praveen Kumar, J.]
1. The sole accused in Sessions Case No. 80 of 2013 on the file of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle, is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code [‘I.P.C.’] for causing the death of one Guntla Ramana [‘deceased’] on 08.02.2013 at 9:30 hours in Sammangi Apparao’s Zirayath land, Bapadupalem Village, Paravada Mandal. By its Judgment, dated 22.09.2014, the learned Sessions Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced him to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-in default to suffer simple imprisonment for three months.
2. The facts, as culled out from the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, are as under:
ii) It is said that, on 08.02.2013 at about 10.00 a.m., the accused and the deceased went to painting work and, thereafter returned home at 6.00 p.m. on that day; while PW2 and her mother, by name, Sanyasamma [PW3] along with deceased were present in the house, the accused came to their house at 7.00 p.m. and took the deceased with him for consuming toddy. At about 9.30 p.m., the accused alone returned to the house and informed PW2 that the deceased fell down in the land of one Sammangi Apparao of Bapadupalem Village. Then, PW2, PW3 and others proceeded to the said place and noticed the deceased on the ground with injuries on the back and head. The injured was shifted in the Auto of PW4 to Primary Health Centre, Parawada, for treatment. It is said that, the injured succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment at Parawada. In the same auto, they brought back the deceased to the house and, thereafter, the accused absconded.
iii) While so, on 09.02.2013, while PW1 – the Village Revenue Officer, Bharanikam Village of Parawada Mandal, was at Gram Panchayat Office, the accused approached him and made an extra-judicial confession stating that, on the previous day night, a dispute arose between him and his brother-in-law [deceased] and in the course of the said dispute, he beat him with a casuarina stick on the head; thereafter went to the house and informed PW2 that the injured fell down in the land of one Sammangi Apparao of Bapadupalem Village. He also confessed about taking the injured to the hospital; the treatment given and the deceased succumbing to the injuries at Primary Health Centre, Parawada. The said statement of the accused was reduced into writing and the signature of the accused was also obtained in the statement. Thereafter, PW1 handed over the accused at Parawada Police Station along with report and the statement of the accused. Ex.P1 is the report given by him along with the statement of the accused enclosing a copy of the statement of the Accused.
iv) PW15 – the Sub-Inspector of Police, submits that basing on the statement of PW1 and Ex.P1, a case in Crime No.25 of 2013 of Parawada Police Station, came to be registered for the offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. Ex.P7 is the First Information Report. Thereafter, he along with staff visited the scene of offence and posted a Police Constable to guard the scene. He then secured PW2 to PW4 and recorded their statements. He then held inquest over the dead body in the presence of mediators. Ex.P2 is the inquest report. At the time of inquest, he examined PW1 to PW4 and recorded their statements. Thereafter, he sent the dead body for post-mortem examination.
v) PW14 – C.I.C., N.T.R. Area Hospital, Anakapalle, conducted autopsy over the dead body on 09.02.2013 at 2.05 p.m. and issued Ex.P6 – post-mortem certificate. According to him, the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory arrest secondary to head injury with a large subdural hemarize.
vi) PW15, who continued with the investigation, arrested the accused and pursuant to the confession
Siva Kumar v. State By Inspector of Police, (2006) 1 Supreme Court Cases 714
Pregada Balanagu v. Krosuru Kotayya
Mujeeb and another v. State of Kerala
Piara Singh and Others v. State of Punjab
In order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the gui....
Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration; reliance on such confessions without substantive proof renders convictions unsafe.
Extrajudicial confessions require corroboration and cannot solely establish guilt without reliable evidence.
Extra-judicial confessions, even without prior acquaintance, can be credible if made immediately post-offence, supporting murder convictions.
Extrajudicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration; reliance on them must be cautious and supported by credible evidence.
(1) Non-examination of Investigating Officer in all cases does not render prosecution case vulnerable.(2) There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness pro....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.