Point of Law :
intention of the legislature for enactment of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, it appears was to prevent extortion of confessions and the inventions facilitating the procuring of convictions, which the police officers were considered likely to employ. The purpose of enacting Section 25 of the Evidence Act was to put a stop to the extortion of confessions by the police officers by malpractics.

RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

1. Having been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), having been sentenced to life imprisonment, having been convicted for the offence under Section 379 IPC, having been imposed with a fine of Rs.2,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment of three years, the appellants, Parvatham Pentaiah, (accused No.1), Parvatham Narsaiah, (accused No.2), and Thoorpati Sailu (accused No.3) have approached this Court.

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 07.06.2011 T.Sandeep Reddy (P.W.1) lodged complaint (Ex. P.1) at the Medchal Police Station wherein he claimed that his brother, T.Samath Reddy (the deceased), cultivates about Acs.2.00 of agricultural land and is also engaged in dairy business. As usual, on 06.06.2011, around 09:00 A.M., his brother went to their farm. While his parents returned from the farm in the evening, his brother, T.Samath Reddy, did not come back from the farm. Around 06:00 P.M., his neighbour, B.Naveen (P.W.2), informed him that he heard certain hue and cry from their farm. Therefore, T. Sandeep Reddy (P.W.1), along with his father, went to their farm. There, he discovered that his brother, T.Samath Reddy had dead; the dead body was lying in a pool of blood. A stick was also found lying besides the dead body. According to the complaint (Ex. P.1), some unknown persons had assaulted his brother and killed him. On the basis of this complaint (Ex. P.1), a formal First Information Report (FIR), namely, FIR.No.181/2011 (Ex. P.12) was registered for offence under Section 302 IPC. The investigation commenced. During the course of investigation, the police also discovered four sticks, having blood, lying near the dead body.

3. Meanwhile, on 22.06.2011, B. Erena (P.W.7) arrested the accused persons in another criminal case, namely Crime No.86/2011 under Sections 302 and 379 IPC registered at Kukanoorpally Police Station, Medak District. During the investigation of the said case, allegedly appellant Nos.1 to 3 made a confessional statement to the police. In the confessional statement, Thoorpati Sailu (accused No.3), also admitted that he had committed theft of one cell phone from T.Sampath Reddy (the deceased) and had also stolen Rs.110/- from him. Therefore, the police added the offence of Section 379 IPC in Crime No.181/2011. Since the Police Station, Medchal, was informed about the confessions made by the accused before the Police Station Kukanoorpally, P.T. warrant was taken; the accused persons were further interrogated by the police of the Medchal Police Station. Upon the confession statement made by Thoorpati Sailu (accused No.3), a cell phone allegedly belonging to the deceased was recovered from one P.Jagan (P.W.5). During the course of investigation, it was also revealed that Parvatham Pentaiah (accused No.1), Parvatham Narsaiah (accused No.2) are residents of Vemulghat Village of Thoguta Mandal, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District. Thorpati Sailu (accused No.3) is the resident of Kappalabasthi, Metpally Karimnagar, Miyapur, Ranga Reddy District. While accused Nos.1 and 2 are brothers, accused No.3 is the brother-in-law of accused Nos.1 and 2. Having completed the investigation, police filed a charge sheet for offences under Sections 302 and 379 IPC against the appellants.

4. In order to substantiate its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses, and submitted fifteen documents and also produced eight material objects, before the learned trial Court. After appreciating the evidence, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal before this Court.

5. Ms. A.Gayathri Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellants, has raised the following contentions before this Court:-

Firstly, the entire case is based only on two pieces of evidence, i.e., the alleged recovery of the cell phone allegedly belonging to the deceased, upon the statement made by the accused No.3, and upon the testimony of P.Jagan (P.W