Confessions are relevant but inadmissible unless proven voluntary and corroborated; extra-judicial confessions require independent verification.

ORDER :

E.V.VENUGOPAL, J.

1. This Criminal Revision Case is filed by the petitioner/accused No.6 under Sections 438 and 442 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) contending that in-spite of vehement objection from the learned counsel for the accused, the trial Court i.e. learned Special Sessions Judge for Trial of SC/STs (POA) Act Cases-cum-II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Nalgonda on 11.06.2024 and 09.09.2024 recorded the inadmissible portion of alleged confession statement of the petitioner through LW69, who is examined as PW17/panch witness for confession, seizure and panchanama of accused Nos.1 and 3 to 7 and prayed this Court to call for the records from the trial Court pertaining to SC No.70 of 2019 and set aside/delete the said inadmissible evidence and to direct the trial Court to re-open the case for further cross- examination of PW17.

2. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, learned senior counsel representing on behalf of Sri Sanjeeva Reddy Garlapati, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri E.Ganesh, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor representing the 1^st respondent/State.

3. The brief facts that lead to registration of SC No.70 of 2019 on the file of the trial Court are that son of de-facto complainant /Perumalla Balaswami namely Pranay Kumar and daughter of Thirunagaru Maruthi Rao/A1 namely Amrutha Varshini fell in love and married against the wishes of said Maruthi Rao and during their conjugal life, said Amrtha Varshini became pregnant and on 14.09.2018 at about 01.30 PM, when Pranay Kumar and Amrutha Varshini along with wife of the de-facto complainant namely Premalatha were returning back from Jyothi Hospital, Miryalaguda, after attending medical check-up, one unknown person suddenly came with a knife and dealt severe blows on the head of Pranay Kumar and fled away due to which said Pranay Kumar sustained severe bleeding injuries on head and neck, collapsed and died on the spot. Subsequently, the de-facto complainant lodged a complaint with the police alleging that since daughter of Maruthi Rao married his son, who does not belong to their caste, said Maruthi Rao along with his brother T.Sravan Kumar/the petitioner herein hired a killer and got murdered his son through the said killer. The police of Miryalaguda registered Crime in FIR No.139 of 2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with 34, 120(B) read with 109 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act and after completion of investigation, the police laid charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302 read with 34, 120(B) read with 109 IPC and Section 3(2)(V) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Section 25(IA) and 27(3) of Indian Arms Act, 1959. The trial Court took cognizance of the said offences against the accused and numbered the said charge-sheet as SC No.70 of 2019 and proceeded with the trial, after duly complying all the required procedural aspects.

4. During the course of trial, as per docket order dated 20.06.2024 the trial Court rejected the objection raised by learned counsel for the accused Nos.1, 4 and 6, who vehemently opposed recording of confession statement of accused and taking the said confession into record as it is hit by Section 27 of Evidence Act. The trial Court while rejecting the said objection of the learned counsel for the accused Nos.1, 4 and 6, categorically held that confession statement is not admissible in evidence but it is the relevant fact as such it has to come on record to discover the fact and it is the burden of the prosecution to prove that the said confession statement is as per Sections 24, 25 and 26 of Indian Evidence Act and has to establish that the said confession statement is voluntarily made and there is no inducement or force and it is fair and made with