Kumarayya, J.-This is a reference under section 374, Criminal Procedure Code, for confirmation of death sentence passed by the Sessions Judge, Chittoor. The accused Upputholla Srinivasulu alias Seenugadu has also come in appeal against his conviction under sections 302 and 201, Indian Penal Code, read with section 34, Indian Penal Code and sentence of death and five years rigorous imprisonment passed against him. This judgment will govern both the proceedings.

The appellant is one of the six accused who were jointly tried for having first murdered one Alivelamma of Krishnareddigaripalli on 10th April, 1956 and then, having caused the disappearance of evidence by burying her dead body in the river bed at Gurralarevu.

The prosecution story is that the deceased was a mala married woman of attractive features but of loose morals. She had illicit connections with several persons including A-1 to A-4. For a number of years she was in continuous keeping of A-1 who before his marriage, which took place one year prior to her murder, either used to visit her house or send for her through A-6 (appellant) his farm servant. He was giving her money, clothes and grain. Her husband was a road cooly and could not get enough for a decent living. He had no control over her. He had, therefore, to reconcile himself with his inevitable lot.

The trouble arose when A-1 was married. Now his visits became infrequent, but the deceased who largely depended on him for her living would not leave him. She became defiant and started reminding him of his promises that he would not marry any one and would never leave her. It is said that in order to win him over to her side she even contrived to administer some drug in fowl curry. A-2 to A-4 being interested in A-1 called upon the deceased just a few days previous to the incident of murder to return the fowl which she had stolen for this purpose from the house of A-1. The deceased retorted and exposed her intimacy with A-1 to A-4. This flung the first accused in a violent fit of rage and he threatened her that he will crush her to death if she did not return the fowl within a week. Thus it is said that the deceased’s determination to cling on to A-1 and the latter’s anxiety to get rid of her provided the strongest motive for the murder of the deceased and that A-6 as A-1’s farm servant was interested in A-1. Curiously enough even after the abovementioned incident A-1 at her request paid the deceased Rs.10 for her shandy purchases on Tuesday. After she had returned from the shandy, she slept in her house. According to the story of the prosecution on that very night A-6 took her from her house to the custard apple tree in Yerakavya field about 100 yards away from the village where A-1 to A-5 were present. A-1 asked her to lie down and had his sexual intercourse with her. They were still in that posture when A-1 made signs to the other accused. At this the other accused came from the hiding caught hold of her neck and killed her by pressing the throat and twisting her neck. Then her dead body was carried to Pincha River bed at Gurralarevu and was buried in the sand.

The husband of the deceased having found his wife missing, reported the matter eventually on 12th April, 1956. The police arrived at the place and on 14th April, 1956 in the morning arrested Accused No. 6. On the information given by him, the dead body was recovered from Gurralarevu with her sari, ravika and other things nearby. Then the confessional statement of the accused was got recorded and the charge-sheet was laid after the arrest of the other accused.

All the accused denied the charges against them. A-6 went back on his confessional statement and said that it was obtained under the threat and inducement of the police. He denied to have given any information which resulted in the recovery of the dead body.

The learned Sessions Judge after examining 16 witnesses came to the conclusion that the confessional statement was voluntary that it was true as i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document