Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
A V Ravindra Babu, J.
Harijana Uligappa And Another, S/o. Late Ramappa and ors. – Petitioners
Versus
State of A.P., Rep by PP., - Respondent
Criminal Revision Case No: 733 of 2008
Decided On : 04-05-2023
Extra-Judicial Confession - Criminal Revision Case - Sections 304-A and 201 of I.P.C. - Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, Pakkirisamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadu, State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram - Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires corroboration in all material aspects. The value of evidence as to confession depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. The presence of suspicious circumstances can make the credibility of an extra-judicial confession doubtful. The conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession if it is voluntary, true, and made in a fit state of mind. The confession will have to be proved like any other fact. The value of evidence as to confession depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it has been made. If the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the accused under Sections 304-A and 201 of I.P.C. The prosecution alleged that the accused, A.1 and A.2, were involved in the death of two individuals due to electrocution and subsequently burying the bodies to conceal the evidence. The prosecution relied heavily on the extra-judicial confession of the accused, recorded by the Panchayat Secretary, P.W.14, and the subsequent confession recorded by the investigating officer. However, several witnesses did not support the prosecution's case, and there were discrepancies in the recording of the confessions.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the extra-judicial confession recorded by P.W.14 was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and lacked corroboration. The Court highlighted the irregularities and discrepancies in the recording of the confession, including the location and manner of recording, as well as the presence of suspicious circumstances. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the extra-judicial confession was voluntary and free from blemish. As a result, the Court concluded that the judgment of the lower court was not legally sustainable and acquitted the Revision Petitioners of the offences under Sections 304-A and 201 of I.P.C.
Issues: The key issues in the case revolved around the reliability and admissibility of the extra-judicial confession recorded by P.W.14, the presence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the confession, and the lack of corroboration for the confession. Additionally, the discrepancies in the recording of the confession and the failure of several witnesses to support the prosecution's case were significant issues in the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the well-established legal principles related to extra-judicial confession, highlighting that it is a weak piece of evidence and requires corroboration in all material aspects. The Court also stressed the importance of the confession being voluntary, true, and made in a fit state of mind. The Court's decision was based on the lack of corroboration, the presence of suspicious circumstances, and the irregularities in the recording of the confession.
Final Decision: The Criminal Revision Case was allowed, setting aside the judgment of the lower court and acquitting the Revision Petitioners of the offences under Sections 304-A and 201 of I.P.C. The fine amount, if any, imposed on the accused, was ordered to be refunded to them after the appeal time was over.
ORDER :
This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioners, who were the appellants in Criminal Appeal No.23 of 2007, on the file of II Additional Sessions Judge, Kurnool at Adoni (“Additional Sessions Judge” for short), challenging the judgment, dated 13.05.2008, whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge, dismissed the Criminal Appeal confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against the appellants in C.C.No.38 of 2003, on the file of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Alur, for the offences under Sections 304-A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (“I.P.C.” for short).
2. The parties to this Criminal Revision Case will hereinafter be referred to as described before the trial Court for the sake of the convenience.
3. The State, represented by the Inspector of Police, Alur, filed a charge sheet in Crime No.43 of 2002 of Holagunda Police Station, alleging the offences under Sections 304-A and 201 of I.P.C.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, as set out in the charged sheet is as follows :
(ii) Deceased 1 and 2 were doing arrack business since about one year prior to their death. Ten days prior to 19.08.2002, they died. They used to go to Hadligi village in Karnataka State to bring the arrack sachets and used to sell the same in their village, Santhakudluru. As usual, they went to Hadligi village to purchase arrack sachets about 10 days prior to 19.08.2002. On 10.08.2002 or 09.08.2002 while they were returning with arrack sachets during night time to avoid police and Excise officers, they came near Chinnaheta village in Holagunda Mandal. On the way, they came into contact with the electrical wire put up around the fields of A.1 to protect his Sunflowers crop from animals. So, the deceased 1 and 2 contacted with electricity and died on the spot. On the next day morning, A.1 went to his fields and found two dead bodies fallen in the fields with two bags of arrack sachets by their side. Having noticed the dead bodies and found that they died due to electrocution from the electric wire fenced by him, he feared and tried to conceal the same. He disclosed the incident to A.2 during night. Both A.1 and A.2 with an intention to screen away the evidence of the death of deceased 1 and 2, at about 10- 00 p.m., took the two dead bodies along with two bags of arrack sachets in a double bullock cart from the fields of A.1. They took the dead bodies to cantor trench situated near Chakaligutta and the fields of one Gowramma. They buried two dead bodies in the said trench and also two bags of arrack sachets. They did not disclose the incident to anybody till 29.08.2002.
(iii) Ten days subsequent to the burial of the dead bodies by A.1 and A.2, rumors spread in the village that two dead bodies were buried in the cantor trench. On that L.W.1-Reddy Seetharami Reddy, Village Secretary and L.W.6-Talari Dodda Basappa went to the said place on 19.08.2002 at 8-00 p.m. They found two dead bodies and two bags of arrack sachets there. L.W.1 gave report to Sub-Inspector of Police, Holagunda Police Station and on his report, the Head Constable registered it as a case in Crime No.43 of 2003 under Sections 302 and 201 of I.P.C. suspecting that both of them were murdered. The Inspector of Police, Aluru, during investigation found that they were not murdered, but they died due to electrocution due to live electric wire put up by A.1 around fields and after coming to know that A.1 and A.2 buried the said dead bodies to screen the evidence.
(iv) On 29.08.2002 both the accused approached L.W.13-Harijana Dasari Krishna Murthy and disclosed t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for extra-judicial confessions to be voluntary, free from blemish, and corroborated by reliable evidence. The court emphasized that....
The convicting based solely on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions requires corroborative proof and must adhere to well-established principles regarding such evidence.
Extrajudicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration; reliance on them must be cautious and supported by credible evidence.
Extrajudicial confessions require corroboration and cannot solely establish guilt without reliable evidence.
Extra-judicial confessions can support convictions if corroborated by independent evidence; circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt.
In a case arising out of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove each of the circumstances relied upon by them and the circumstances so proved should form a chain of events connecting t....
The court upheld the conviction under Section 304 Part-II IPC, emphasizing that the absence of premeditation and the nature of the incident fell within Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC.
Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence requiring corroboration and should be credible; reliance on insufficient evidence led to the appellant's acquittal.
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
