Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Palavala Ramakrishna Chinnayya, ... vs The State Of Ap., Rep Pp., on 13 August, 2024
Author: K.Sreenivasa Reddy
Bench: K Suresh Reddy
APHC010217722017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3486]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY ,THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SURESH REDDY
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 56/2017
Between:
Palavala Ramakrishna @ Chinnayya, Srikakulam Dt., ...APELLANT
AND
The State Of Ap Rep Pp ...RESPODENT
Counsel for the Apellant:
1. G VIJAYA SARADHI
Counsel for the Respodent:
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP)
The Court made the following:
K SURESH REDDY,J
K SREENIVASA REDDY,J
2
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.56 OF 2017
JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
This Criminal Appeal by the appellant-sole accused is
directed against the judgment, dated 14.12.2016, in Sessions
Case No.112 of 2014 on the file of the Judge, Family Court-
cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Srikakulam,
whereby the appellant was found guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and accordingly he was convicted
of the said offences and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six
months for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC
and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of six
months for the offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
2. The substance of the charges framed against the
appellant/sole accused is that on 31.12.2012 at about 4.00
PM, the accused took Balaga Appalaraju (hereinafter referred
to, as 'the deceased') to Madduvalasa project, Vangara on the
plea of bathing and while taking bath, the accused kicked on
the testicles of the deceased and pushed him into reservoir
water, bearing grudge against the deceased as he was getting
profits more than the accused and also insulted the accused
for not returning Rs.2,000/- which was taken as hand loan
by the accused from the deceased and thereby committed
murder of the deceased which is an offence punishable under
Section 302 IPC; and having knowledge that the accused
committed an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC, the
accused secreted wearing apparel of the deceased i.e. red
colour shirt, cap and Nokia cell phone and thereby caused
evidence of commission of the offence of murder to disappear
with an intention of screening himself from legal punishment
and thereby the accused committed an offence punishable
under Section 201 IPC.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows.
P.W.1 is wife of the deceased. She is resident of Sivvam
village, Vangara Mandal. Accused is resident of Vangara
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
village and mandal. The deceased used to plough lands of
peasants on rental basis. The accused is a close relative to
the deceased and he was also living by running a tractor and
doing the same business. Because of his hard work, the
deceased was getting good profits in his profession than the
accused, and the same became an eye sore to the accused.
The accused took a hand loan of Rs.2,000/- from the
deceased, but did not repay it, and for not repaying the same,
the deceased insulted the accused in the presence of
villagers.
On 31.12.2012, P.W.23 engaged tractor of the deceased
for ploughing his land while P.W.3 engaged tractor of the
accused. But, due to lack of plough set, the deceased and
P.W.24 went to land of P.W.3, where the accused was
ploughing the land of P.W.3, and asked the accused to give
his plough set. The accused was not inclined to give the
same stating that the work was not completed. At about
2.00 PM, the accused and P.W.4 went for lunch and asked
the deceased to continue plough work with the tractor of the
accused. The deceased accordingly continued doing plough
work. But, due to lack of diesel in the tractor of the accused,
the deceased could not continue the work and the same was
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
informed to the accused over phone. On the instructions of
the accused over phone, the deceased left the field of P.W.3
and went towards M.Sitarampuram village. P.Ws.3, 17 and
others noticed the deceased going towards M.Sitarampuram
village. At about 3.30 PM on that day, P.W.5 noticed the
deceased and the accused going towards M.Sitarampuram
village on a motorcycle driven by the accused, and on the
way, they took Rs.100/- from P.W.13 for consuming liquor.
They purchased liquor in the wine shop of P.W.6 in
M.Sitarampuram village, consumed liquor at the shop of
P.W.7 and since then the deceased was found missing.
On 02.01.2013 at 9.00 AM, P.W.1 lodged a report with
Vangara police stating that on 31.12.2012 at about 2.00 PM,
the deceased left the house with tractor along with P.W.24 to
plough his land but did not return home and found missing.
Basing on the same, P.W.23-Sub Inspector of Police, Vangara
police station registered a case in crime No.1 of 2013 for man
missing and during the course of investigation, examined
and recorded statements of witnesses and came to
conclusion that the deceased was last seen in the company of
the accused. On 03.01.2013 at 12.30 hours, P.W.2-V.R.O. of
Vangara lodged a report stating that dead body of the
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
deceased was found floating in Madduvalasa reservoir near
MRP land. Based on the same, the Inspector of Police,
Rajam took up investigation, examined and recorded
statements of witnesses, preserved reservoir water for diatom
test under cover of scene observation report, conducted
inquest over the dead body of the deceased and sent the
same for postmortem examination.
On 08.01.2013 at about 7.00 AM, the accused
surrendered before P.W.14 and another and confessed that
he bore grudge against the deceased as the deceased insulted
him before others for the amount of Rs.2000/- and due to
jealousy over the business and decided to kill the deceased
and on 31.12.2012 at about 16.00 hours, he took the
deceased to Madduvalasa project and while taking bath, he
kicked on testicles of the deceased and pushed him into
reservoir water and killed him brutally. Based on the
extrajudicial confession, P.W.22 altered the Section of law to
Sections 302 and 201 IPC and issued altered FIR. On
08.01.2013 at 10.00 AM, he arrested the accused and
recorded his confessional statement, and pursuant to the
same, police seized M.Os.1 to 5 under cover of separate
mediators report. P.W.22 got the accused remanded to
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
judicial custody and also forwarded seized water and viscera
for analysis. On receipt of RFSL report, P.W.20-Doctor
issued postmortem certificate and final opinion opining that
the deceased died due to cardio respiratory failure secondary
to drowning. After receipt of relevant documents and
completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
4. In support of the case of prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 24 were
examined and Exs.P1 to P25 were got marked, besides case
properties M.Os.1 to 5. After completion of prosecution side
evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 CrPC
to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. He denied the
same. On behalf of defence, no oral evidence was adduced,
but Exs.D1 to D6 were got marked. After appreciating the
evidence on record, the learned Sessions Judge convicted
and sentenced the accused, as stated supra. Challenging the
same, the present Criminal Appeal is preferred.
5. Now, the point that arises for determination is whether
the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the
appellant/accused for the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 IPC beyond all reasonable doubt?
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
contended that there are no eye-witnesses to the occurrence
of the incident in question to show that the accused is the
assailant of the deceased and the entire case rests on the
circumstantial evidence. He further submitted that even if
all the circumstances relied on, by the prosecution are taken
as true and correct, they do not form a chain, so complete
that within all human probability, the crime was committed
by the appellant alone and none else; that except recovery of
M.Os.1 to 5, there are no incriminating circumstances to
show that the appellant is the assailant of the deceased. He
further submitted that the accused is alleged to have made
Ex.P5-extra judicial confession before P.W.14 and another,
who are unknown persons to the accused, and except the
alleged extra-judicial confession, there is no other
corroborative evidence to bring home the guilt of the accused.
He further submitted that P.W.24 categorically stated that he
along with the accused and others were detained in police
station and were harassed by the police. He submitted that
except the evidence of a witness that the accused and the
deceased were seen together, there is no other evidence to
connect the accused to the crime; that in the circumstances,
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
the alleged extrajudicial confession alone cannot be the basis
for conviction, and that basing on surmises and conjectures,
the trial court found the appellant guilty, and hence, he
prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded by
the trial court.
He relied on decisions in Prabhatbhai Aatabhai Dabhi v.
State of Gujarat1 and Pritinder Singh @ Lovely v. State of
Punjab2, and submitted that in the absence of any positive
evidence, the Courts ought not to have relied upon
extrajudicial confession.
7. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Public
Prosecutor contended that there is abundant material to
connect the accused to the subject crime. According to him,
the extrajudicial confession Ex.P5 made by the accused
before P.W.14 and another, coupled with the evidence of
circumstantial witnesses and the recovery of M.Os.1 to 5,
proves the guilt of the accused. He further submitted that
because the deceased was last seen in the company of the
accused prior to the time of the death, it can be inferred that
there was no possibility for any other person to commit
murder except the accused, and from the circumstances
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.11.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.1926 of 2011
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 05.07.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.1714 of 2010
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
relied on, by the prosecution, it is clear that the appellant is
the assailant of the deceased and that, the trial Court, upon
considering the evidence on record, rightly convicted and
sentenced the appellant, and there are no grounds to
interfere with the same. Hence, he prayed to dismiss the
Criminal Appeal.
8. P.W.19 is one of the inquest mediators present when
P.W.22 conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased
under Ex.P3-inquest report. According to P.W.19, he was
present when P.W.22 conducted inquest on the dead body of
the deceased and the inquest mediators could not come to a
conclusion with regard to apparent cause of death of the
deceased.
9. P.W.20 is the Doctor who conducted postmortem on the
dead body of the deceased on 04.01.2013 from 10.30 AM to
11.30 AM. According to P.W.20, he found the following ante-
mortem injuries.
1.Left side of scrotum is diffusely swollen along with mild
swelling of penis and right side of scrotum;
2.Left hand palm thenar region is diffusely swollen;
3. 2 cm diameter abrasion is found on left arm pit;
4. peripheral cyanosis is present.
5. Both lips are diffusely swollen along with tongue and
the tongue is protruded, both eyes are protruded from
the orbits.
The whole body is diffusely swollen and blebs are present
all over the body surface.
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
According to the Doctor, cause of death of the deceased
is on account of cardio respiratory failure secondary to
drowning, and some times, forced injuries on testicles can
cause death of a person. Ex.P11 is the post mortem
examination report. From the evidence of P.Ws.19, 20 and
22 and the recitals in Exs.P3 and 11, homicidal nature of
death of the deceased is established.
10. P.W.1 is wife of the deceased. The deceased used to
attend cultivation work and he worked as a tractor driver
since the deceased and P.W.1 owned a tractor. The deceased
did cultivation pertaining to others apart from their lands.
On 31.12.2012 at about 2.00 PM, P.W.24 went to house of
P.W.1 and required tractor for the purpose of ploughing
sugarcane in the land. The deceased contacted the accused
for the purpose of the tractor and thereafter the deceased
and P.W.24 left house and went to land of P.W.3 where the
tractor set was available, and in order to bring the same, they
went there. On 03.01.2013 at 12.00 noon, P.W.2, Village
Revenue Officer of Vangara village, on information that dead
body of the deceased was found near Madduvalasa Reservoir,
proceeded to the said place and found dead body of the
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
deceased, and he gave a report to the Station House Officer,
Vangara police station.
11. P.W.3 engaged the accused for ploughing the land
belonging to him. On 31.12.2012 at about 2.00 PM, the
deceased and P.W.24 went there and enquired with the
accused about the availability of tractor set, and the accused
told that his work was not completed and he cannot provide
the tractor set to the deceased. Since it was lunch time, the
accused proceeded on a bike belonging to P.W.3's son to have
lunch. The deceased ploughed land of P.W.3 for four times,
but by that time, diesel in the tractor exhausted and the
same was informed to the accused by phone. Then the
accused informed that he would bring diesel and at that time
the deceased also informed that he would also accompany
him, and thereafter, the accused along with the deceased
proceeded to Seetharampuram on a bike belonging to son of
P.W.3.
12. P.W.4 is son of P.W.3. He saw the deceased and the
accused going on a vehicle. At about 6.00 PM, the accused
alone returned to his field by his bike. When P.W.24
enquired about the deceased, the accused informed that the
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
deceased got down at M.Seetharampuram for consuming
liquor.
13. P.W.5 stated that about four years back at about 3.00
PM, he saw the accused alone going by bike. P.W.6 is the
employee in Maha Lakshmi Wine Shop, M.Seetharampuram
village and he was looking after sales division of the said
shop. According to him, on 31.12.2012 at about 3.30 PM,
he served liquor to both the deceased and the accused.
P.W.7 who was running a pan shop near the aforesaid Wine
shop, stated that about 3 years back, he served water
packets, snacks and glasses to both the accused and the
deceased.
14. P.W.8 stated that about 4 years back, he met the
accused at about 6.00 PM. P.W.24 was also present along
with the accused. The accused obtained Rs.7,000/- from
him on earlier occasion and on that P.W.8 demanded the
accused to repay the amount. The accused informed P.W.8
that he would return the same on the next day since he did
not have money at that time. Thereafter, the accused
enquired P.W.8 whether he saw the deceased. The accused
also informed him that the deceased went to
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
Seetharampuram village to consume liquor. P.W.8 along
with P.W.24 and the accused went to Seetharampuram
village and searched for the deceased till 9.00 PM but not
traced him. Then, they consumed liquor. At that point of
time, they enquired with P.W.6 about the deceased and he
told them that the deceased consumed liquor and left their
wine shop. Then, the accused stayed at Vangara village and
P.W.8 and P.W.24 returned to Sivvam village.
15. P.W.9, who is tractor driver, stated that on 31.12.2012
at 6.00 AM, he along with others went to the land belonging
to Mangala Gaddeyya for ploughing, and at about 7.30 PM on
that day, they went to Seetharampuram Wine shop. He had
beer and Mangala Gaddeyya had liquor and they went to
noodles shop, and while they were taking noodles, P.W.24,
P.W.8 and the accused went there and they also took
noodles.
16. P.W.13 stated that on 31.12.2012 at about 3.30 PM,
he has last seen the deceased and the accused going together
on a motor bike. P.W.16 did not support the case of
prosecution and he was treated hostile by the prosecution.
P.Ws.17 and 18 also deposed that they saw the accused
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
going along with the deceased on a motor bike at different
timings. P.W.24, in his cross-examination, categorically
stated - "On 02.01.2013, the police called me, P.W.3 and his
son Rambabu (P.W.4) and the accused to the police station.
It is true that all of us interrogated by the Police and they
also manhandled us. It is true that P.W.19, Udayana
Muralikrishna and Gajendranaidu came to the P.S. and they
took us i.e. mine, P.W.3 and his son (P.W.4) from the Police
Station and the accused was detained in the Police Station.
It is true that there was an understanding between said
elders and the Police and on that all of us freed by the Police
and we were told that we should support the Police whatever
they say and with that understanding they freed us."
17. On a perusal of the entire evidence on record shows
that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident. Entire case
of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. When a case
rests upon circumstantial evidence, law is well settled that all
the circumstances must firmly and unerringly point out the
guilt towards the accused; that all the circumstances, if
taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that
within all human probability, the crime was committed by
the accused and none else. All the circumstances should not
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
only be consistent with the case of prosecution but also
should be inconsistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused. On this aspect, it is pertinent to refer to a decision
reported in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of
Maharashtra3 wherein it is held at para No.153 as under:
"A close analysis of this decision would show that the
following conditions must be fulfilled before a case
against an accused can be said to be fully established
:
(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of
guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and
not 'may be' established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may
be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade
v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR
1973 SC 2622) where the following observations
were made :
"certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused
must be and not merely may be guilty before a
Court can convict and the mental distance between
'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague
conjectures from sure conclusions."
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that
is to say, they should not be explainable on any
other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature
and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
AIR 1984 SC 1622
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused."
The various links in the chain, when taken in
isolation, might not connect the accused with commission of
the crime, but when taken together may unmistakably point
out the guilt of the accused. The Court has to see the
cumulative effect of all the proved circumstances. The
circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must
be complete and incapable of explanation on any other
hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused.
Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen
whether the prosecution is able to establish the guilt of the
accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
18. The only circumstance relied on, by the learned
Sessions Judge to convict the accused is that the accused
and the deceased were last seen together. There is any
amount of ambiguity whether the accused and the deceased
were last seen together or not on 31.12.2012 for the reason
that some of the witnesses deposed that the accused had not
been seen going with the deceased on motor bike on the date
of the incident and some other witnesses deposed that they
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
saw the accused going alone on the bike. P.W.8 categorically
deposed that on the date of the incident, the accused was
present along with them and in fact it was the accused who
was enquiring the whereabouts of the deceased as to whether
he had come to Seetharampuram village or not. P.W.24
deposed that the accused informed that the deceased had
gone to Seetharampuram village. Thereafter, P.W.24, P.W.8
and the accused together enquired about the deceased and
searched for him till 9.00 PM on the said date, but could not
trace him. Thereafter, they went to Wine shop and enquired
with regard to the deceased. The said Wine shop employee
P.W.6 told them that the deceased alone came to the Wine
shop, consumed liquor and left the place. If really the
accused consumed liquor along with the deceased on the
date of the incident, he had gone back to the place where he
was ploughing the land. The accused P.Ws.24 and 8 were
present together. It is not the case of the prosecution that
the accused had already consumed liquor by that time. It is
pertinent to mention here that the accused had gone in
search of the deceased along with P.Ws.24 and 8. When they
enquired with P.W.6, who is Wine shop employee, he
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
categorically stated that it is the deceased alone, who visited
the shop, consumed liquor and left the shop.
19. By virtue of the aforesaid discussion, it can be safely
inferred that the last seen theory cannot be believed for the
reason that there are variations in the evidence of material
prosecution witnesses as to whether the deceased had gone
along with the accused on the date of the incident or not. The
prosecution failed to establish that all the circumstances
firmly and unerringly point the guilt towards the accused and
that all the circumstances, if taken cumulatively, form a
chain so complete that within all human probability, the
crime was committed by the accused and none else.
20. Apart from the last seen theory, the other accusation that
has been made as against the accused is that he is alleged to
have made Ex.P5-extrajudicial confession before P.W.14. Extra
judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. At the same
time, if it is found to be true, correct and trustworthy, it can
be acted upon and there is no legal bar to base a conviction
basing on an extrajudicial confession. Whether extrajudicial
confession can be a sole basis for conviction or whether it
should be corroborated on material particulars, depends
upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
circumstances established by the prosecution are to be
conclusive in nature with complete and unbroken chain of
circumstances leading to an irresistible conclusion that it is
the accused who committed the crime.
21. P.W.14 is a resident of Kagithapalli village, whereas the
accused is a resident of Vangara village. P.W.14 admitted
in cross-examination that prior to 08.01.2013, he does not
know the accused. Keeping that aspect in view, there is any
amount of doubt as to how the accused would go to a
different village on 08.01.2013 and confess with regard to the
incident to a stranger P.W.14. Going to another village and
confessing before a stranger appears to be unnatural.
Further, the alleged incident is said to have taken place on
31.12.2012 whereas the extrajudicial confession that has
been made by the accused was on 08.01.2013 at about 7.00
AM. Except the extrajudicial confession, there is no other
evidence to connect the accused to the crime. In the
circumstances of the case, in the absence of any
corroborative evidence, the extrajudicial confession allegedly
made by the accused before P.W.14 cannot be the sole basis
to find the accused guilty of the charges levelled against him.
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
22. Further in the light of the evidence of P.W.24 that on
02.01.2013, the police called him, P.Ws.3 and 4 and the
accused to the police station, and police interrogated all of
them and they also manhandled them; that P.W.19, Udayana
Muralikrishna and Gajendranaidu came to the P.S. and they
took them i.e. P.W.24, P.Ws.3 and 4 from the Police Station
and the accused was detained in the Police Station; that
there was an understanding between said elders and the
Police and on that all of them freed by the Police and they
were told that they should support the Police whatever they
say and with that understanding they freed them, the theory
propounded by P.W.14 that after the accused making the
confession before him on 08.01.2013, he and L.W.3-
Gangadhar took the accused along with confessional
statement to Vangara police station and handed over them to
police, appears to be incorrect. The accused was already in
the custody of police by 02.01.2023, as per the evidence of
P.W.24.
23. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this
Court have been consistent in holding that in a case of
extrajudicial confession, it must be of sterling quality.
Having caused the death of the deceased, the question of the
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
accused going and making confession before a stranger
appears to be very unnatural and improbable. In Pritinder
Singh @ Lovely v. State of Punjab (2 supra), the Hon'ble Apex
Court held thus: (paragraphs 12 and 13)
"22. The law with regard to extra-judicial confession has
been succinctly discussed in Munna Kumar
Upadhyay v. State of A.P. [Munna Kumar Upadhyay v. State
of A.P., (2012) 6 SCC 174 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri) 42] , wherein
this Court has also referred to its earlier judgments, which
read thus : (SCC pp. 195-97, paras 56-63)
"56. This Court has had the occasion to discuss the
effect of extra-judicial confessions in a number of
decisions. In Balwinder Singh v. State of
Punjab [Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 1995 Supp
(4) SCC 259 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 59] this Court stated the
principle that : (SCC p. 265, para 10)
'10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is
rather a weak type of evidence and requires
appreciation with a great deal of care and caution.
Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by
suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes
doubtful and it loses its importance.'
57. In Pakkirisamy v. State of
T.N. [Pakkirisamy v. State of T.N., (1997) 8 SCC 158 :
1997 SCC (Cri) 1249] the Court held that : (SCC p.
162, para 8)
'8. ... It is well settled that it is a rule of caution where
the court would generally look for an independent
reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon
such extra-judicial confession.'
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
58. Again, in Kavita v. State of T.N. [Kavita v. State of
T.N., (1998) 6 SCC 108 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1421] the
Court stated the dictum that : (SCC p. 109, para 4)
'4. There is no doubt that convictions can be based on
extra-judicial confession but it is well settled that in
the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of
evidence. It is to be proved just like any other fact and
the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the
witness to whom it is made.'
59. While explaining the dimensions of the principles
governing the admissibility and evidentiary value of an
extra-judicial confession, this Court in State of
Rajasthan v. Raja Ram [State of Rajasthan v. Raja
Ram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1965] stated
the principle that : (SCC p. 192, para 19)
'19. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary and true
and made in a fit state of mind, can be relied upon by
the court. The confession will have to be proved like
any other fact. The value of the evidence as to
confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the
veracity of the witness to whom it has been made.'
The Court further expressed the view that : (Raja Ram
case [State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, (2003) 8 SCC
180 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1965] , SCC p. 192, para 19)
'19. ... Such a confession can be relied upon and
conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence
about the confession comes from the mouth of
witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even
remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of
whom nothing is brought out which may tend to
indicate that he may have a motive of attributing an
untruthful statement to the accused....'
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
60. In Aloke Nath Dutta v. State of W.B. [Aloke Nath
Dutta v. State of W.B., (2007) 12 SCC 230 : (2008) 2
SCC (Cri) 264] , the Court, while holding that reliance
on extra-judicial confession by the lower courts in
absence of other corroborating material, was
unjustified, observed : (SCC pp. 265-66, paras 87 &
89)
'87. Confession ordinarily is admissible in evidence. It
is a relevant fact. It can be acted upon. Confession
may under certain circumstances and subject to law
laid down by the superior judiciary from time to time
form the basis for conviction. It is, however, trite that
for the said purpose the court has to satisfy itself in
regard to : (i) voluntariness of the confession; (ii)
truthfulness of the confession; (iii) corroboration.
***
89. A detailed confession which would otherwise be
within the special knowledge of the accused may itself
be not sufficient to raise a presumption that
confession is a truthful one. Main features of a
confession are required to be verified. If it is not done,
no conviction can be based only on the sole basis
thereof.'
61. Accepting the admissibility of the extra-judicial
confession, the Court in Sansar Chand v. State of
Rajasthan [Sansar Chand v. State of Rajasthan, (2010)
10 SCC 604 : (2011) 1 SCC (Cri) 79] held that : (SCC
p. 611, paras 29-30)
'29. There is no absolute rule that an extra-judicial
confession can never be the basis of a conviction,
although ordinarily an extra-judicial confession should
be corroborated by some other material. [Vide Thimma
& Thimma Raju v. State of Mysore [Thimma & Thimma
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
Raju v. State of Mysore, (1970) 2 SCC 105 : 1970 SCC
(Cri) 320] , Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. [Mulk Raj v. State
of U.P., AIR 1959 SC 902];
Sivakumar v. State [Sivakumar v. State, (2006) 1 SCC
714 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 470] , SCC paras 40 and
41, Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State of
Maharashtra [Shiva Karam Payaswami Tewari v. State
of Maharashtra, (2009) 11 SCC 262 : (2009) 3 SCC
(Cri) 1320] and Mohd. Azad v. State of W.B. [Mohd.
Azad v. State of W.B., (2008) 15 SCC 449 : (2009) 3
SCC (Cri) 1082] ]
30. In the present case, the extra-judicial confession
by Balwan has been referred to in the judgments of
the learned Magistrate and the Special Judge, and it
has been corroborated by the other material on record.
We are satisfied that the confession was voluntary and
was not the result of inducement, threat or promise as
contemplated by Section 24 of the Evidence Act, 1872.'
62. Dealing with the situation of retraction from the
extra-judicial confession made by an accused, the
Court in Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of
Gujarat [Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of
Gujarat, (2009) 5 SCC 740 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 881]
held as under : (SCC pp. 772-73, para 53)
'53. It appears therefore, that the appellant has
retracted his confession. When an extra-judicial
confession is retracted by an accused, there is no
inflexible rule that the court must invariably accept
the retraction. But at the same time it is unsafe for the
court to rely on the retracted confession, unless, the
court on a consideration of the entire evidence comes
to a definite conclusion that the retracted confession is
true.'
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
63. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be
true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind.
The words of the witnesses must be clear,
unambiguous and should clearly convey that the
accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-
judicial confession can be accepted and can be the
basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility.
The extra-judicial confession should inspire
confidence and the court should find out whether
there are other cogent circumstances on record to
support it. [Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B. [Sk.
Yusuf v. State of W.B., (2011) 11 SCC 754 : (2011) 3
SCC (Cri) 620] , SCC pp. 762-63, para 28
and Pancho v. State of Haryana [Pancho v. State of
Haryana, (2011) 10 SCC 165 : (2012) 1 SCC (Cri) 223]
.]"
23. From the evidence of PW 2, we find that it cannot be
said that the extra-judicial confession is one which could
be found to be credible. There appears to be no reason as
to why the accused persons would go 100 km away and
confess to him. Apart from that, his conduct also appears
to be unnatural. Though IO Amritpal Singh (PW 11) was
known to him and the telephone which was installed in his
house was in a working condition, he did not find it
necessary to inform him through telephone. We are,
therefore, of the considered view that the courts below have
erred in relying on the extra-judicial confession made to PW
2."
24. In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that it is
difficult to believe that the accused would go to a different
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
village and make a confession before a stranger P.W.14. In
the absence of any other evidence to point the guilt towards
the accused, it is difficult to place an implicit reliance on the
alleged extrajudicial confession to base conviction.
25. On a conspectus of the entire evidence on record, there
is any amount of doubt as to how the incident that is said to
have taken place, as suggested by the prosecution. An
implicit reliance cannot be placed on the evidence of
prosecution or on the extrajudicial confession made by the
accused, to base a conviction. In view of the aforesaid
reasons, the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt. The
learned Sessions Judge has not considered these aspects in
proper perspective and erred in convicting and sentencing
the appellant/accused. Hence, the convictions and
sentences recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in the
impugned Judgment are not sustainable in the eye of law.
26. In the result, the Criminal Appeal is allowed, setting
aside the convictions and sentences recorded against the
appellant/sole accused, in the judgment dated 14.12.2016,
in Sessions Case No.112 of 2014 on the file of the Judge,
Family Court-cum-III Additional District and Sessions Judge,
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
Srikakulam. The appellant/sole accused is found not guilty
of the charges for the offences punishable under Sections
302 and 201 IPC and is acquitted of the said charges and he
is set at liberty. Fine amount, if any, paid by the appellant
/sole accused shall be refunded to him.
27. The appellant herein/accused was released on bail as
per the Order of this Court dated 26.12.2022 in I.A.No.1 of
2022 in the above Criminal Appeal, in view of the Judgment
of the combined High Court in Batchu Ranga Rao Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh4. Hence, the appellant herein/accused is
directed to appear before the Superintendent, Central Prison,
Visakhapatnam for completing necessary legal formalities.
-----------------------------------------
JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
------------------------------------------------
JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
13.08.2024
DRK
Crl.A.M.P.No.1687 of 2016 in Crl.A.No.607 of 2011, dated 02.11.2016 .
KSRJ & SRKJ
CRL.A.NO.56 OF 2017
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.56 OF 2017
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy)
13.08.2024
DRK
