Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
K. SUJANA, J.
Thirunagaru Sravan Kumar @ Sravan S/o Venkata Rangaiah – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
Criminal Petition Nos. 6887, 6894 of 2024
Decided On : 18-07-2024
Confession - Criminal Procedure - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26, 27, 24, 167 - The court emphasized that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible, and only portions leading to the discovery of facts are admissible as evidence, influencing the decision to quash the trial court's order.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a complaint regarding the murder of a young man following a love affair, leading to criminal petitions to quash a trial court's order admitting confessions that were deemed inadmissible under the law.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court improperly admitted the entire confession of the accused, which included inadmissible portions, and directed that only the admissible parts related to the discovery of facts should be considered.
Issues: Whether the trial court erred in admitting the entire confession of the accused, which included inadmissible statements, and whether the confessions should have been limited to those parts that led to the discovery of facts.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible, and only the portions that lead to the discovery of facts are admissible as evidence, as per Sections 25, 26, and 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Result: The criminal petitions were allowed, quashing the trial court's order regarding the confession.
ORDER:
1. Since the issue involved in both the criminal petitions is one and the same, they are being heard and disposed of together by way of this common order.
2. These Criminal Petitions are filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) to quash the docket order dated 20.06.2024 against the petitioners/accused Nos.4 and 6 respectively in S.C. No. 70 of 2019, on the file of the learned Special Sessions Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases – cum – II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District.
3. The brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2/de facto complainant lodged a complaint before the Police, Miryalaguda I Town Police Station, Nalgonda District stating that he had two sons. When his elder son, i.e., Pranay Kumar, was in class 10, he got acquainted with one Amrutha Varshini and later they became close to each other. One day the said Amrutha Varshini told his elder son that if he did not accept her love, she would commit suicide, due to which, the said Pranay Kumar accepted her love. When the love matter was known to the father of Amrutha Varshini, he stopped her studies and house arrested her. Due to the pressure of Amrutha Varshini, the said Pranay Kumar took her to Hyderabad and got married without informing anyone. The father of Amrutha Varshini lodged a complaint about it before the Miryalaguda Police, who then brought Pranay Kumar and Amrutha Varshini from Hyderabad to Miryalaguda. Amrutha Varshini informed the Police that they were majors, and as such, they got married. Since then, Amrutha Varshini has been residing with Pranay Kumar at his house.
4. It is further stated that Amrutha Varshini was conceived and attending regular checkups at Jyothi Hospital in Miryalaguda. On 14.09.2018, Amrutha Varshini, Pranay Kumar, and his mother went to the hospital for medical checkup, after completion of the same when they were going home, an unidentified male person came behind Pranay Kumar with a large knife, attacked him and dealt severe blows on his head with a Knife, as a result, he received severe bleeding injuries to his head and neck and died on the spot.
5. Based on the said complaint, the Police registered a case in Crime No. 139 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 120 (b) read with 109 of IPC, and Section 3 (2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 25 (1) (A) and Section 27 (3) of the Indian Arms Act, 1959. After completion of the investigation, they filed a charge sheet, vide S.C. No. 70 of 2019, before the learned Special Sessions Judge for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Cases-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nalgonda District.
6. During the course of trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses. On 20.06.2024, during the chief examination of PW-17, the prosecution brought on record the confession statement of accused Nos.1 and 6 and reiterated the same in his evidence for which the defence counsel objected for recording the said evidence. The trial Court has passed the impugned order stating that though the confession of accused Nos.1 and 6 was not admissible in evidence, the objection of the defence was overruled since the confession revealed a pertinent piece of information i.e., MO.6 – Mobile phone. Hence, the present criminal petitions.
7. Heard Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 6887 of 2024, and Sri C. Sharan Reddy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 6894 of 2024 as well as Sri S. Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1 in both the cases.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the confession of accused Nos.1 and 6 should only have been admitted to the extent that they contributed to the discove
Confessions to police are inadmissible; only portions leading to factual discovery are admissible as evidence.
Demonstration panchanama is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act as it does not lead to the discovery of physical facts but rather constitutes a confession made in police presenc....
The admissibility of a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the mandatory provision of inflicting a fine under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(1) There should not be acquittal of guilty or conviction of innocent person.(2) Appeal against acquittal – It is only in rarest of rare cases, where High Court, on an absolutely wrong process of rea....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of a confession made to a police officer under Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act.
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
