IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
K Suresh Reddy, K Sreenivasa Reddy, JJ.
Syam Dondiya, Srikakulam - Appellant
Versus
The State of AP Rep PP – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No: 70/2017
Decided On : 09-08-2024
Criminal Law - Murder - IPC Sections 302, 201 - The court discussed the evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony and extrajudicial confessions, emphasizing the need for corroboration and the principle that extrajudicial confessions are weak evidence unless proven credible.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was accused of murdering the deceased over a dispute regarding cattle damaging crops. The prosecution relied on eyewitness testimony and an extrajudicial confession, while the defense argued the lack of credible evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the eyewitness testimony unreliable and the extrajudicial confession improbable, leading to reasonable doubt regarding the appellant's guilt.
Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that extrajudicial confessions require corroboration and cannot solely support a conviction, especially when surrounded by doubts regarding their credibility.
Result: The appeal is allowed, and the conviction and sentence are set aside.
JUDGMENT :
K.Sreenivasa Reddy, J.
This Criminal Appeal by the appellant-sole accused is directed against the judgment, dated 26.04.2016, in Sessions Case No.73 of 2015 on the file of the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam at Sompeta whereby the appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and accordingly he was convicted of the said offence and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/accused not guilty of the charge under Section 201 IPC and accordingly acquitted him of the said charge.
2. The substance of the charges framed against the appellant/sole accused are that on 31.11.2011 at about 4.00 PM at Badagam village, Kanchili mandal, he did commit murder of Udaya Gowd @ Ujwal Gowd (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the deceased’) by chopping neck and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, and having knowledge that the accused committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the accused caused certain evidence of the offence to disappear with an intention of screening the body of the deceased, dug out a pit and buried the dead body, and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows.
The accused and the material prosecution witnesses are residents of Bodagam village, Kanchili mandal. Accused is brother-in-law by courtesy of P.W.4. P.W.5 is daughter of P.W.4. P.W.6 is brother of the deceased. P.W.7 is wife of the deceased. The deceased is son of paternal uncle of P.W.8. 10 years prior to the incident, wife of the accused left him and the accused was staying alone in his house. The accused had vegetable creepers around his house. The deceased was moving in the surroundings of Bodagam Hill area by driving his cattle for grazing for the last two or three months prior to the date of the incident. He used to leave his cows for grazing in the morning and secure them in the evening. The accused had a dispute with the deceased as the latter drove his cattle into agricultural field and caused damage to the crops. On 30.11.2013 afternoon, the deceased drove his cattle into agricultural field of the accused and caused damage to standing crop like turmeric, maize, vegetable creepers, etc. At about 4.00 PM, the accused came back to the house by driving back his goats from the hill and witnessed that cattle of the deceased grazing his crops. When the accused asked the deceased about it, the deceased adamantly replied to show where his cattle grazed the crops. Unable to tolerate the same, the accused chopped the deceased with a sharp knife at the neck on both sides and as a result, the deceased heaped down and died on the spot. After hearing shouting, P.W.4 went out of her house and saw the accused chopping neck of the deceased with knife, and as she got scared, she went into the house. Later, with an intention of causing disappearance of the evidence, the accused dragged the dead body of the deceased to nearby Tamarind tree, dug out a pit and buried the body. At about 8.00 PM, the deceased disclosed about commission of the offence to P.W.3. P.W.3 informed the same to P.W.2 over phone. Thereafter, P.W.2 contacted P.W.1, who was the Sarpanch of Timilangi village, Kanchili mandal. On 01.12.2013 at about 1.00 PM, P.Ws.2 and 3 went along with the accused to house of P.W.1, where the accused gave confessional statement Ex.P1.
On 01.12.2013, P.W.14-Sub Inspector of Police, Kanchili police station received statement of the accused from P.W.1 along with Ex.P2-report, and basing on the same, registered a case in crime No.135 of 2013 for the offences punishable under Section 302 and 201 IPC under Ex.P16- FIR. P.W.15-Inspector of Police, Sompeta Circle took up investigation, sent requisition to the Tahsildar to depute V.R.Os. to
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.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, and extrajudicial confessions require corroboration to be reliable.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, and extrajudicial confessions require corroboration to be credible.
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, even without prior acquaintance, can be credible if made immediately post-offence, supporting murder convictions.
(1) Extra-judicial confession – Extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence – If extra-judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appea....
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.