Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Gajendragadkar P.B. and Chainani H.K. , JJ.
Appellants: Rangappa Hanamappa and Anr.
Vs.
Respondent: State
Criminal Appeal No. 795 of 1953
Decided On: 08.09.1953
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: H.F.M. Reddi, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: H.M. Choksi, Govt. Pleader
CRIMINAL LAW - CONFESSIONS - ADMISSIBILITY - IRREGULARITIES IN RECORDING - EFFECT - SECTION 164(3), CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 29, EVIDENCE ACT - INTERPRETATION - CORROBORATION OF CONFESSIONS - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
Two accused were charged with murder and convicted based on their confessions and other evidence. The confessions were recorded by a magistrate, but the magistrate did not comply with all the requirements of Section 164(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which requires the magistrate to explain to the accused that they are not bound to make a confession and that it may be used against them. The accused appealed, arguing that the confessions were inadmissible.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the confessions were admissible despite the irregularities in recording them. The court interpreted Section 164(3) and Section 29 of the Evidence Act together and concluded that Section 29 overrides Section 164(3) and makes confessions admissible even if the requirements of Section 164(3) are not met. The court also held that the confessions were corroborated by other evidence and were therefore reliable.
Issues: 1. Whether the confessions were admissible despite the irregularities in recording them. 2. Whether Section 29 of the Evidence Act overrides Section 164(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. 3. Whether the confessions were corroborated by other evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 29 of the Evidence Act makes confessions admissible even if the requirements of Section 164(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code are not met. 2. Section 29 overrides Section 164(3) because it is a later enactment and because it deals specifically with the admissibility of confessions. 3. The confessions were corroborated by the statement of a witness who saw the accused fleeing the scene of the crime and by the testimony of three relatives of the deceased who were told by the witness that the accused had committed the murder.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the convictions and sentences of the accused were upheld.
1. The two appellants were charged in the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Bijapur, with having committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34, Penal Code. The charge against them was that on 28th August, 1952, at about midnight, at Vantigod, the two accused, in furtherance of their common intention to murder Lakkappa, caused his death whilst he was sleeping in front of the temple of Kamdev by letting down a stone on his left side which caused injuries to him and by cutting him with an axe with the intention of causing his death or such bodily injuries as were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause his death. The accused denied the charge and pleaded innocence.
2. The assessors with whose help the trial was held were unanimously of the opinion that the charge had not been proved beyond a reasonable doubt against both the appellants. But the learned Judge did not agree with this opinion and came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved their case against both the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt. That is why he convicted both of them of the offence charged and sentenced each of them to transportation for life. Accused No. 1 has been directed to be kept in the juvenile section of the ordinary prison. It is this order of conviction and sentence which is challenged before us by Mr. Reddi on behalf of the appellants.
3. The houses in which the two accused and the deceased Lakkappa resided were all situated in Madargeri, the Harijan locality of the village Ventigod. On a Saturday preceding the day of the offence, Tippawa, the wife of the deceased Lakkappa, was taking her bath in the lane between her house and that of accused No. 1. Just then accused No. 1 and accused No. 2 came near Tippawa and began to abuse her. This led to a quarrel between the deceased Lakkappa and the two accused. This quarrel brought on the scene a number of neighbours. Amongst them were Pendappa and Venkappa. The mother of accused No. 1 went to these witnesses and appealed to them to stop the quarrel that was proceeding between her son and Lakkappa.
These two witnesses and others then proceeded to the houses of accused No. 1 and the deceased Lakkappa. They Intervened and separated the quarrelling parties from each other. In the end accused Nos. 1 and 2 went to their respective places of residence and Lakkappa and his wife likewise went home. Thereafter Lakkappa had gone to the village of Mudalgi to attend the bazar there. He returned on Thursday following at about 3 P. M. As usual, after night-fall he went to sleep in Kamdevs temple.
4. It was while Lakkappa was asleep in front of Kamdevs temple that accused Nos. 1 and 2 murdered him. Lakkappa was then lying on a mat his head was placed on a pillow. He had taken off both his shirt and underwear and kept them near the pillow. Soon after he had fallen asleep, Sadashiv, who used to sleep by the side of Lakkappa, came to the temple, spread his own bed and went to sleep. About midnight Sadashiv felt the touch of Lakkappas hand on his body. He was awakened and when he got up he saw the deceased Lakkappa struggling as a result of bleeding injuries. One of the accused was then standing near the head of Lakkappa and the other by his side. Accused No. 2 was armed with an axe.
Sadashiv could identify the two accused because they were known to him. As soon as Sadashiv got up, the two accused ran away. Sadashiv then ran to the house of the deceased and informed Tippanna, the maternal-uncle of the deceased, Yamnawwa, his mother and Tippawa, his wife, about the offence which had been committed by the accused. These three relatives then rushed to the scene and found that Lakkappa was dead. By this time a large crowd of villagers had assembled on the spot. Information of this offence was then conveyed to the Police Patil and at the end of the investigation a charge-sheet was submitted against both the appellants that they had committed t
AI
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
