Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Sunkaragalla Pedda Pullaiah, ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 20 April, 2022
Bench: Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Gannamaneni Ramakrishna Prasad
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATHI
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.331 OF 2016
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl. OFFICE
DATE ORDER
No. NOTE
08. 20.04.2022 AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J
and
G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J
(Per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah)
I.A. No.1 OF 2020
Heard Mr. Akurathi Rama Krishna,
learned counsel, representing Ms.
Vijayalakshmi Agisam, learned counsel for
the applicant/appellant/accused and Mr. S.
Dushyanth Reddy, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, for the State.
2. The applicant, who is convicted
vide judgment dated 13.10.2015 in Sessions
Case No.154 of 2014 by the learned VI
Additional Sessions Judge, Anantapuramu
at Gooty for the offences under Sections 302
and 392 of IPC has been sentenced to
imprisonment for life for the offence under
Section 302 of IPC and rigorous
imprisonment of five years for the offence
under Section 392 of IPC.
3. The Interlocutory Application No.1
of 2020 has been filed seeking suspension
of sentence and release of the applicant,
during pendency of the Appeal.
4. The applicant was accused of
killing the deceased, from whom he had
taken a piece of land behind her house for
the purposes of kitchen garden, and had
confessed that as he was in debt he had
lured the deceased to a place near the
house where there were thorny bushes
saying that others were there for taking loan
from her, as she used to give money on
interest. It has further been stated in the
confession that actually he wanted to kill
the deceased and take her gold chain so as
to satisfy the debt which the applicant had
on him.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submitted that except for the extra judicial
confession of the applicant, there is nothing
to connect him to the crime. It was
submitted that the story of recovery is also a
stereotyped one, which does not give
credence to the applicant being involved in
the crime. Moreover, it was submitted that,
the recovery of the gold jewellery and other
articles has been in close proximity of the
house of the deceased and the same shows
that it could not have been the hand work of
the applicant as he would not have hidden
the same so near to the place of occurrence
so as to be discovered by anyone else and
would have hidden it somewhere where
nobody else would have reached and further
he would have sold the gold for money to
satisfy his debts, which he did not do.
6. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, on the other hand, submitted
that in the trial, cogent evidence has come
to link the applicant to the crime. It was
submitted that on the confessional
statement of the applicant, which was taken
in the presence of the Village Revenue
Officer, who is unconnected with the
applicant/appellant, he had admitted to the
crime and had stated that he could take the
Police to the place of occurrence where he
had hidden the stone and stick used for
killing the deceased and also her gold
jewellery and the bloodstained clothes worn
by him. It was submitted that based on the
same, when the Police went to the spot, the
applicant went to the bush and brought the
gold jewellery and the bloodstained cloth
from one place and from another place the
stick and the limestone used to commit the
crime. Thus, it was submitted that, based
on the confession in the presence of
independent witnesses, the Police went to
the spot and there also it was the applicant
himself who got the articles and brought it
from the bush to the Police.
7. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submitted that the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Siva Kumar v. State By
Inspector of Police [2006 (1) SCC 714],
has held that extra judicial confession made
before the Village Revenue Officer is
acceptable in evidence provided the same
inspires confidence. It was submitted that,
in the present case, the confession first of
all was made before the Village Revenue
Officer, who is a neutral functionary and
more importantly, the same had led to
recovery of the gold worn by the deceased
and the articles used for the offence as also
the bloodstained clothes of the applicant
himself. Learned Additional Public
Prosecutor submits that relying on the
same, a Division Bench of this Court in
Criminal Appeal No.131 of 2020 by order
dated 21.09.2021 has dismissed the bail
application of the said accused under
similar circumstances.
8. Having considered the facts and
circumstances of the case and submissions
of learned counsel for the parties, the Court
is not inclined to grant the prayer sought in
the Interlocutory Application and
accordingly the same stands dismissed.
________________________________
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, J)
________________________________
(G. RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J)
Dsh
