Back
2004(1) Crimes 155 (SC)
Supreme Court of India
(From Andhra Pradesh High Court)
N. Santosh Hegde & B.P. Singh, JJ.
Kojja Sreenu —Appellant
versus
State of A.P. —Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 671 of 2003
Decided on 18-12-2003
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mrs. C.K. Sucharita, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Guntur Prabhakar, Advocate.
Important point
Statement of co-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he helped accused-appellant in throwing body of deceased in a pond being in nature of confession involving co-accused, it would not be safe to rely on it in absence of any corroboration whatsoever.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Sections 302/34 and 201—Conviction on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confession—Appeal—Extra-judicial confession was made before PW 5, an attender in District Collectorate—PW 5 did not proceed to inform police after confession made to him and rather proceeded to inform brother of deceased—Appellant did not have any special reason to make a confession to this witness—It would be unsafe to rely on such extra-judicial confession—PW 2 though claimed to have seen deceased and appellant quarrelling on date of incident but admitted that he did not know accused prior to incident—Statement of accused A3 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he admitted to have helped appellant in throwing body in pond was in nature of confession involving co-accused and it was unsafe to rely on it in absence of any corroboration—Conviction could not be sustained. (Paras 6 to 9)
Result : Appeal allowed.
Judgment
Santosh Hedge, J.—The appellant and two others were charged for an offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC as also for an offence punishable under section 201 read with section 34 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, who by his judgment dated 15.10.1998 convicted all the accused persons for offences punishable under section 302 read with section 34 and section 201 and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life; for the office under section 201 IPC, no separate sentence was awarded by him. In appeals filed against the said judgment, the High Court of Judicature Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, so far as the appeal of Bunadri Veeraiah A-2 is concerned, it allowed the same and acquitted him of the charges framed against him. So far as the appeal of Moram Sreenu A-3 is concerned, the High Court partly allowed the said appeal and while acquitting him of the charge under section 302 IPC, convicted him of the offence under section 201 IPC and sentenced him to the period already undergone, while the High Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein, confirming the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, hence, the said accused is before us in this appeal.
2. The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that all the 3 accused persons and the deceased, Challa Venkanna @ Naddodu were involved in property offences. While the said deceased was in custody for one such offence, between the years 1993 and 1995, the appellant developed illicit intimacy with the wife of the deceased and he eloped with her. On his being released from custody, the deceased having come to know of this relationship, he got his wife to return to him and also allegedly warned the appellant against the said relationship. It is because of this reason there was ill will between the two of them. Prosecution states that the appellant on 29.3.1995, when the deceased and the accused persons had gone to a toddy shop to consume toddy and were returning back, the appellant had an altercation with the deceased in the presence of other accused persons. This was noticed by Kodi Lingaiah, PW-5. It was the further case of the prosecution that from 29th to 31st March, 1995 the deceased was not seen. The prosecution alleges that on 31.3.1995, the appellant went to PW-1 who was working as an attender in the Collectorate and made a confession to him that he and his friend had killed the deceased on 29.3.1995 and thrown his body in a pond near the river Munneru. Having got this information, the brother of the deceased went to the Khammam Rural Police Station and filed a complaint against the accused persons which was registered as Crime No. 60 of 1995 with that Police Station and an offence under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 IPC was registered against the accused persons. The trial court accepted the evidence of PW-5 to whom the appellant allegedly made an extra-judicial confession. It also took note of the fact that PW-2 had seen the appellant quarrelling with the deceased on 29.3.1995 and accepting the motive as projected by the prosecution found all the accused guilty, as stated above.
3. The High Court in appeal, accepted the evidence of PW-5 as to the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the appellant and the evidence of PW-2 in regard to the quarrel that took place on 29.3.1995. It also accepted the prosecution case in regard to the motive as suggested by the prosecution but in the absence of any direct evidence or other material to establish the actual role played by A-2, the High Court found him not guilty of the offence and acquitted him. While in regard to A-3 the High Court came to the conclusion that there was no material adduced by the prosecution as to his role in the murder of the deceased but placing reliance on his statement made under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he admitted the fact that he had assisted the appellant in disposing of the body convicted him only for that offence while acquitting
