IMPORTANT POINT
Provisions of Section 164 Cr. P.C. & Rules and guidelines framed by High Court regarding recording of confessional statements of accused emphasise an inquiry by Magistrate to ascertain the voluntary nature of confession.

JUDGMENT

Dr. A.S. Anand, J. - This appeal, by special leave, has been filed by Shivappa S/o Bundappa who was accused No.2 in the trial court and appellant No.2 in the High Court and is directed against the, order of the High Court of Karnataka dated 21st September, 1990 upholding his conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 302 I.P.C. The appellant along with Smt. Sudha (A 1) and four others were tried for various offences in connection with the murder of Suresh Singh on 4.12.1986 at about 3.00 a.m.

2. According to the prosecution case Smt. Sudha(A 1) was working as a Nurse in the primary health centre at Ullagaddi Khanapur. She was married to the deceased Suresh Singh. The deceased used to live at Belgaum but used to visit his wife, A1 at Ullagadi Khanapur, where she was working, quite often. The appellant Shivappa was working as a Health Guide at the primary health centre at Ullagaddi Khanapur. The husband of Sudha was addicted to drinking and there used to be frequent quarrels between the couple. In order to raise money for buying liquor, the deceased used to sell household articles, if he could not get cash from his wife. The deceased also suspected his wife to be having illicit relations with Ramchanda Hanamant Pujari (A 4) who was working as a Basic Health worker and with Dr. Ashok Madhukar (A 6), who was working as a Medical Officer at the primary health centre Ullagaddi Khanapur at the relevant time. The deceased, after consuming liquor, shortly before the day of occurrence went to the house of A 4 and accusing him of having illicit relations with his wife (A 1) abused him. He thereafter went to the house of A 6 and abused him also in the presence of some of his patients accusing him that he was having illicit relations with his wife. On account of these accusations, the relations between the deceased, A 1, A 4 and A 6 had become strained. These three accused alongwith the appellant, A 3 and A 5 used to meet and discuss the behaviour of the deceased. It is alleged that on 10.10.1985, the appellant alongwith A 4, A 5 and A 6 met in the Gotur Inspection Bungalow and hatched a conspiracy to do away with the deceased by causing his murder. It was planned that the murder would be committed during the night and the dead body would be thrown on the Poona-Bangalore road to give it the complexion of an accident. It was also decided that A 1 would thereafter file a complaint with the police saying that her husband had died in a motor accident and when the dead body would be brought for post-mortem examination before the Medical Officer, A 6, he would certify that the death had been caused by an accident. On 2.12.1985, the appellant alongwith A 1, A 4 and A 5 worked out the plan for committing the murder of the deceased. On 3.12.1985 the deceased came to visit his wife, A 1 at Ullagadi, Khanapur. As per the plan in the early hours of the morning of 4.12.1985, A 3 went to the house of A 1 and asked her to come for a delivery case. A 1 alongwith her husband (deceased) and A 3 went towards Henchinal and on the way the appellant, along with A 4 and A 5 met them. A 4 informed A 1 and A 3 that the patient had already delivered the baby and they could go back to their house. Thereupon, the appellant alongwith A 1, A 3, A 4, A 5 and the deceased proceeded towards Ullagaddi Khanapur. When they had reached near the footpath leading from Henchinal cross to Ullagaddi Khanapur, the deceased was caught hold of by A 1 to A 5. A rope was tied round the neck of the deceased and his wife A 1 pulled the rope thereby causing the death of the deceased. As per the original plan, the dead body was brought and laid on Poona Bangalore road. To lend authenticity to the story of an accident, A 1 went to the house of P.W. 2, located nearby, to bring water telling him about the accident of her husband.

Thereafter, she prepared the complaint Exh. P 52 and went to the police station at 7.15 a.m. and lodged the report with P.W. 18, the In-charge of