Extra-judicial confessions require corroboration from independent evidence to be credible; without it, convictions cannot be sustained.

JUDGMENT :

N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.

Challenging the judgment and sentence passed against the accused 1& 2 by the Additional District and Sessions Court, Krishnagiri, in S.C.No.70 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019, the present Criminal Appeal has been filed. The conviction and sentence imposed on the accused 1 & 2 are as follows:

In respect of 1st Appellant/1st Accused:

The 1st appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- in default to under go simple imprisonment for six months. The 1st appellant was also convicted under Section 302 of the IPC for the offence of murder and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

In respect of 2nd Appellant/2nd Accused:

The 2nd appellant was convicted for the offence under Section 120(B) of the IPC, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The 2nd appellant was further convicted under Section 302 r/w Section 109 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment, along with a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default, simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

The above sentences are ordered to run concurrently and the fine amounts already been paid by them before the trial court on 08.11.2019, the trial court also issued fine receipt bearing Nos.0036006, 0036007 dated 08.11.2019.

2. The first appellant/A1 had passed away during the pendency of this appeal. Therefore, the appeal stands abated, so far as the first appellant is concerned. This court has proceeded to hear the appeal only in respect of the conviction of the second appellant/A2.

3. The prosecution's case is that A1 and A2 are brother and sister. A1 is the brother-in-law, and A2 is the wife of the deceased Shanmugam. A1 and A2 had decided to kill Shanmugam as A2 was unable to tolerate the abusive behaviour of the deceased. A2 had informed A1 to administer poison to her husband and do away with him, and in pursuant to that, A2 had given a sum of Rs.100/-. A1 had purchased poison meant for a Crane for a sum of Rs.5/- and a brandy bottle for a sum of Rs.70/-. Thereafter, he returned the balance of Rs.25/- to A2.

4. According to the prosecution, A1 confessed before the incharge Village Administrative Officer of Govindapuram Panchayat, who was examined as PW1 and his assistant Murugan, who was examined as PW2, that he had murdered the deceased by making him consume the poisoned brandy. The Village Administrative Officer had informed the jurisdictional Police Station, and a complaint was registered by the police, which was marked as Ex.P2.

5. According to PW1, along with the investigation officer, A1 and PW2, he visited the scene of occurrence where the deceased Shanmugam was found dead, and the poison meant for a crane and an empty brandy bottle were recovered. Based on the confession of A1, A2 was arrested, and she confessed to the crime committed by her. The admissible portion of the confession given by A1 and A2 are marked as Ex.P15 and Ex.P18, respectively.

6. The Police had recovered two Rs.10/- currency notes and a Rs.5/-currency note (M.O.3) from A2 under Recovery Mahazar marked as Ex.P5. A Brandy bottle (M.O.1) and a plastic cover with poison meant for a crane (M.O.2) were recovered under Recovery Mahazar marked as Ex.P6.

7. PW1/VAO is the witness to the recovery mahazars marked as Ex.P5 and Ex.P6. PW2 had corroborated the evidence of PW1. PW3, the brother of the deceased, PW4 the son-in-law of the deceased, and PW5 the adjacent landowner, were treated as hostile witnesses. PW6 had deposed that he was running a shop in the name and style of Sri Balaji Agro Service. A1 had come to his shop and purchased the poison for Rs.5/- and 10 days later, the Police investigated him. During the investigation, he had handed over the bill for Rs.5 to the