Back
ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
M. Ganga Rao and T. Mallikarjuna Rao, JJ.
G. Jagadish – Appellant
versus
Public Prosecutor Hyderabad Rep.
by Public Prosecutor High Court
of Judicature at Hyderabad – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.879 of 2015
Decided on 18.11.2022
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of father – Life sentence – inquest, post-mortem, and scene observation report clearly show that the deceased sustained injuries. The nature of the injuries suffered by the deceased indicates that his death was not natural – It is not a universal rule that once F.I.R. is found with discrepancies, whole prosecution case, as a rule, has to be thrown out – Such can never be the law – Testimony of a witness regarding accused making an extra-judicial confession reduced in writing which was marked as an exhibit, is quite trustworthy – Statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. made by witnesses before police assume much significance – Non-examination of Investigation Officer has not prejudiced accused – Non-examination of Investigating Officer in all cases does not render prosecution case vulnerable – However, accused could not be imputed with intention of causing death of deceased – Appropriate conviction would be under Section 304 Part-II IPC and not under Section 302 IPC – Conviction and sentence modified. (Paras 26, 29, 49, 52, 54, 57, 77 and 78)
(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – When a case rests upon evidence of a solitary witness, it must be unimpeachable, genuine, trustworthy, free from doubt and be put in category of wholly reliable – When evidence of a witness is placed in category of fully reliable, then only there is no legal bar to base conviction on solitary testimony of witness – Then only such evidence needs no corroboration – There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable – When ocular evidence is cogent, credible and trustworthy, minor variance is not of any consequence. (Paras 34, 35 and 36)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 24 – Extra-judicial confession – There is no rule of law that evidence of extra-judicial confession cannot be relied on alone and for recording conviction on such confession, there should be corroboration by some other evidence – If evidence of extra-judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond shadow of a doubt, same can be made the sole foundation for recording conviction of accused and Court, by abundant caution, may look for some corroboration. (Para 46)
(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 134 – Number of witnesses – Quality and not quantity determines evidence’s adequacy – Evidence has to be weighed, not counted. (Para 62)
Result: Appeal Partly allowed.
JUDGMENT
T. Mallikarjuna Rao, J.—The accused in S.C. No.162 of 2012 is the appellant herein. He was tried for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘I.P.C.’). By its Judgment dated 07.08.2015, the learned I Additional Sessions Judge, Vijayawada, convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and accordingly sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
2. The gravamen of the charge against the accused is that, on 30.05.2010 at about 5.30 p.m. at Gunnathotavalasa Village, he beat his father-Venkata Ramana, intentionally with a casuarina stick (Sarugudu Karra) on the head and caused bleeding injuries. The injured was shifted to Government Hospital and succumbed to injuries on 01.06.2010 at 7.00 p.m., and the accused committed murder of his father.
3. In brief, the prosecution’s case is that the accused is a resident of Gunnathotavalasa Village and lives by doing coolie work. The deceased is the father of the accused. About 3 years back, the deceased family maintained a tea stall near the N.C.S. Sugar factory, and L.W.5 Sumalatha maintained a tea stall nearby then. The accused fell in love with Sumalatha, and their marriage was performed. Later they shifted their family to Gowdu street, Bobbili. The deceased-Venkata Ramana, tried to outrage the modesty of the wife of the accused several times. On that, Sumalatha went away to her parent’s house. On convincing by the accused, Sumalatha was brought back to their house by the accused. Even then, the deceased did not change his attitude. Later they shifted their residence to the Indiramma colony from Gunnathotavalasa Village. On 29.05.2010 at 9.30 p.m., the accused and his wife slept on the house’s terrace; the deceased went thrice and observed them. On noticing the same, the accused decided to kill the deceased. On 30.05.2010 at 5.30 p.m., the accused asked his father about his coming to the terrace last night. The deceased replied arrogantly by commenting on the fidelity of the wife of the accused. Then the accused beat the deceased with a casuarina stick on the head and temporal region, causing bleeding injuries, and as a result, the deceased fell unconscious. Immediately the injured was shifted to Government Hospital, Bobbili, and in turn to KGH Visakhapatnam; while undergoing treatment, the deceased succumbed to the injuries. On 02.06.2010 at 9.00 a.m., on receipt of death intimation over the phone from an out-post police station, altered the section of law and issued altered F.I.R.
4. On the accused’s appearance, copies of the document, as required under Section 207 Cr.P.C., came to be furnished. Since the case is triable by the Court of Sessions, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions U/S 209 Cr.P.C.
5. Based on the material available on record, as referred to earlier, the charge came to be framed, read over and explained to the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 12 to prove the case. It got marked Exs.P.1 to P.17 besides marking M.O.1. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused got examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating and circumstantial material against the accused in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, to which he denied. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence. The defence was one of total denial.
7. After considering the necessary material available on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the accused guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced as stated hereinbefore. Aggrieved by which the appellant preferred the present appeal.
8. We have heard learned counsel for parties at length and have perused the evidence on record.
9. Smt. C. Vasundhara Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused, has taken us to the evidence of the witnes
(1) Non-examination of Investigating Officer in all cases does not render prosecution case vulnerable.(2) There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on sole testimony of a single witness pro....
Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration; reliance on such confessions without substantive proof renders convictions unsafe.
The court relied on circumstantial evidence, the credibility of witnesses, and the nature of the injuries to establish the guilt of the accused under IPC 302.
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
