Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 323 (AP)

Kundra Madhava Krishna v. State Of A. P.

2002-02-26

M.A.QADIR, V.V.L.N.SHARMA

body2002
BILAL NAZKI, J. ( 1 ) APPELLANTS/a-1 and A-2 were tried for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in sessions Case No. 149 of 1999 on the file of the III-Addl. Sessions Judge, Kakinada. A-1 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. A-2 has been convicted of the offence under Section 201 of ipc and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one month. ( 2 ) CRL. A. NO. 566 of 2000 has been filed by a-2 and Crl. A. No. 748 of 2000 has been filed by A-1. Since both these appeals arise out of the same judgment, they are being disposed of together. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants as well as the learned Public Prosecutor. ( 3 ) IT was alleged by the prosecution that on 16-12-1998 at about 5. 00 p. m. at Chepuru village both the accused committed the murder of Avala Lacharao @ Latchaya. A-1 had picked a knife, hacked the deceased on his neck and throat and A-2 had focused torchlight at him. Thereafter A-2 tied the body in a gunny bag and threw it in a well. Prosecution examined 12 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. ( 4 ) THERE are no eye witnesses to the occurrence. P. Ws. 2 to 6 turned hostile. It is contended by the learned counsel for the parties that only evidence which was available with the trial Court and on the basis of which the conviction has been made is the testimony of P. W. 7. P. W. 7 is a Village administrative Officer. He stated that on 20-12-1998 at 10. 00 a. m. while he was present in his office, A-2 had come to his office and stated that on 16-12-1998 at 8. 00p. P. W. 7 is a Village administrative Officer. He stated that on 20-12-1998 at 10. 00 a. m. while he was present in his office, A-2 had come to his office and stated that on 16-12-1998 at 8. 00p. m. A-1 had killed the deceased Latcharao in the field of bandaru Talupulamma s coconut garden due to the land disputes between him and the deceased, and A-2 and A-1 put the dead body in a gunny bag, took the same on a cycle belonging to A-2 and eventually threw the dead body into a well. This is the statement which allegedly was made by A-2 before p. W. 7. This statement was taken to be an extra judicial confession and on the basis of this alleged confession, both the accused have been convicted. A-1 was convicted of the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of ipc and A-2 was convicted of the offence under Section 201 of IPC. Even if this alleged statement made by A-2 before P. W. 7 was reliable and admissible, even then we do not understand how could it be used against a-1. This was an alleged extra judicial confession made by A-2 and at best it could be used against A-2. Since there is no other evidence connecting A-1 to the crime, he could not have been convicted on the basis of the statement made by A-2 implicating him in the offence. For this reason alone, the conviction and sentence passed under sections 302 and 201 of IPC against A-1 cannot be sustained. Therefore, we set aside the conviction and sentence against A-1. ( 5 ) NOW coming to the case of A-2, even if the statement allegedly made by A-2 before p. W. 7 is taken to be extra judicial confession, even then it could not be relied upon in the absence of any corroborative evidence. We have gone through the evidence. We have not found any corroborative evidence connecting A-2 to the offence under section. 201 of IPC. It is well settled that extra judicial confession is a very weak form of evidence and can be relied upon only when there is corroborative evidence. For this reason, the conviction and sentence passed under Section 201 of IPC against A-2 can also not be sustained. 201 of IPC. It is well settled that extra judicial confession is a very weak form of evidence and can be relied upon only when there is corroborative evidence. For this reason, the conviction and sentence passed under Section 201 of IPC against A-2 can also not be sustained. ( 6 ) FOR the reasons given hereinabove, both the appeals are allowed, convictions and sentences passed against A-1 and A-2 are set aside and they are acquitted. A-2 is on bail and his bail bonds are discharged. A-1 is in jail. He is set at liberty forthwith, if not needed in any other cases.