Rajavarapu Nagalakshmi vs State Of Ap.,
2021 Latest Caselaw 4357 AP

HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI

MAIN CASE NO.: Crl.A.No.1371 of 2018

PROCEEDING SHEET Sl. Date ORDER OFFICE No. NOTE

02. 27.10.2021 JB, J & RNT, J (Proceedings taken up through video conferencing)

I.A.No.1 of 2021 Petitioner/appellant is a lady. She seeks bail on the ground that the evidence against her is purely circumstantial and she has convicted solely on purported extra judicial confession made before PW.15-Village Revenue Officer after one year and four months of the incident. It is further submitted in the initial statement made by the petitioner in the course of magisterial enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C., she had stated that her mother-in-law had poisoned her and two minor children, who ultimately succumbed to their death. The trial Judge without any justification disbelieved such version and believed the so called extra judicial confession made after a lapse of more than one year. It is further contended that the petitioner was on bail during trial and she did not misuse the liberty in any manner whatsoever.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner being the mother of the minor children had administered poison to herself as well as to the children, who ultimately succumbed to death.

We have perused the judgment as well as the materials on record.

There is no evidence on record that the petitioner had procured the poison. Neither FSL report shows poison was present in the tumbler, which was allegedly recovered pursuant to the leading statement of the petitioner/appellant. However, conviction is based on the extra judicial confession made by the petitioner before PW.15 after a lapse of one year and four months. It is relevant to note petitioner herself was admitted in hospital after the incident and had contemporaneously made a statement in the course of magisterial enquiry under Section 174 Cr.P.C. stating due to matrimonial discard her mother- in-law had administered poison to herself as well as minor children. Nothing is placed on record to show why the trial Judge disbelieved the version disclosed by the petitioner at the first instance and relied upon the so-called incriminating statement made by her before the Village Revenue Officer after a lapse of one year and four months.

Extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and the attending facts and circumstances leading to making of such confessional statement ought to be examined thoroughly in order to ascertain whether making the incriminating statement by the accused is probable in the ordinary course of nature apart from testing whether the confession is voluntary and truthful. In the present factual matrix, reliability of the extra judicial confession requires to be tested in the backdrop of the earlier exonerating statement and the inordinate delay in making the confession, that is, one year and four months after the date of incident. These issues require to be gone into in the course of hearing of the appeal and we are satisfied that the petitioner/appellant has made out a prima facie arguable case in her favour. In addition thereto, the appellant is a lady and she was on bail during trial and she did not misuse the liberty in any manner whatsoever. Under such circumstances, we are inclined to suspend the sentence and enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the sentence imposed on the petitioner is suspended and she shall be enlarged on bail on her executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) with two sureties of like amount each to the satisfaction of the Judicial First Class Magistrate at Mylavaram. However, she shall report before the trial Court once in a month till disposal of the Appeal, failing which the trial Court shall submit a report to this Court, whereupon the bail so granted to the petitioner shall stand cancelled in accordance with law.

________________ Joymalya Bagchi, J

________________ Ravi Nath Tilhari, J Ivd