Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Shaik Kalesha, vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh, on 20 November, 2024
Author: K.Suresh Reddy
Bench: K.Suresh Reddy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY
CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.584 of 2016, 13 of 2017 and
468 of 2020
COMMON JUDGMENT:
(per the Hon'ble Sri Justice K.Sreenivasa Reddy) These Criminal Appeals are directed against the Judgment dated 21.06.2016 passed in Sessions Case No.216 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional Sessions Judge, Nellore.
2. Appellant in Criminal Appeal No.584 of 2016 is A.2 in the aforesaid Sessions Case. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/A.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC'), accordingly convicted him of the said offence and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month.
3. The appellant in the other Criminal Appeal Nos. 13 of 2017 and 468 of 2020 is A.1 in the aforesaid Sessions Case. The appellant/A.1 got filed Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2017 2 through the Legal Aid counsel Sri N.Parameswara Reddy, and also got filed Criminal Appeal No.468 of 2020 through his counsel Sri P.Narahari Babu. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant/A.1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 IPC, accordingly convicted him of the said offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and further sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for a period of one month for the offence punishable under Section 376 IPC. The sentences were directed to run concurrently.
4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as follows.
The deceased Shaik Rasoolamma @ Rasooli is wife of A.2. A.1 is father, and A.3 is mother, of A.2. P.W.1 is elder brother of the deceased. Marriage between A.2 and the deceased was performed about 4 years prior to the incident, and they were blessed with two male children out of the wedlock. A.2 was 3 addicted to vices viz. drinking, playing cards, etc. and sold gold ornaments of the deceased, which were given to her by her parents at the time of marriage, for his vices. The accused used to ill-treat and harass the deceased physically and mentally, demanding her to get Rs.50,000/- from her parents for purchase of an auto by A.2. When the deceased informed the same to P.W.1 and others, they convinced her to adjust with the accused for sake of children. About 20 days prior to the incident, A.2 shifted his residence to Rajiv Gandhi Colony and started living with the deceased, his children and A.1.
On 22.8.2012 at about 4.00 PM, P.W.1, on receipt of information that the deceased fell unconscious in her house, rushed to her house along with relatives and neighbours and found A.2 in the house crying that the deceased hanged herself with cradle saree and fell unconscious. She was shifted to P.W.9, a Registered Medical Practitioner at Mypadu Gate Centre, Nellore for first aid, where he examined and declared her brought dead. On a report lodged by P.W.1, P.W.19-A.S.I. registered a case in crime No.197 of 2012 of II Town police station, Nellore for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. During the course of investigation, P.W.15- 4 Mandal Executive Magistrate conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased on 23.8.2012 in the presence of mediators. Thereafter, the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. P.W.19 observed the scene of offence and seized one silk saree having white and yellow flower design, one thin (light) bed (bontha), one red colour chunni and one green colour bangles in the presence of mediators under cover of observation report.
P.W.14 and another Doctor conducted post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and found presence of spermatozoa in the vagina of the deceased, and opined that there were signs of rape and the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage due to head injury and blunt injury to abdomen. Thereafter, the Sections of law were altered to Sections 498A, 302, 376 and 304B IPC and P.W.20 took up further investigation.
It came to light during the course of investigation that A.3 left for Madhya Pradesh for a short period and so A.1 was also residing with A.2 and his family, and that A.1 used to coerce the deceased for sexual intercourse with him in the absence of other accused, and on the date of the incident, A.1 and A.2 5 came to their house for lunch and went away for work, and thereafter, at about 2.30 PM, A.1 alone came to house while the deceased was alone in the house and went away in a hurried manner within half-an-hour. On 24.09.2012, P.W.16-V.R.O. produced A.1 to A.3 before the police with a report of extra judicial confession. P.W.21 arrested them and on the basis of the confession of A.1; he seized shirt and lungi of A.1 under cover of panchanama. A.1 was referred for potency test to P.W.14-Medical Officer, who after examination, issued Potentiality Certificate opining that A.1 is capable of performing sexual intercourse. On chemical analysis of samples forwarded to them, RFSL authorities issued report stating that blood, semen and spermatozoa, etc. were detected on them.
It is revealed during investigation that even prior to the incident, A.1 used to force and coerce the deceased for sexual intercourse, but she refused therefor, and hence, he was waiting for an opportunity for the same. On the fateful day, A.1 and A.2 attended their work till 1.00 PM, came to house of A.2 for lunch and left the house at 1.30 PM for work after having lunch. At about 2.30 PM, A.1 alone came back to house of A.2, found the deceased in the house and her elder son playing in 6 street. The deceased was feeding her younger son. A.1 forced her to have intercourse with him, and when she refused for the same, he tried to commit rape on her. When she resisted and tried to raise cries, he pressed her mouth with hands and fisted in her stomach (abdomen), and as a result, she fell down on Bontha. Then, A.1 tried to commit rape on her and when she tried to escape, he hit her head to the leg of the cot, as a result of which she fell unconscious. Then, A.1 committed rape on her, as she did not regain consciousness, he thought that she was dead, and in order to escape from the offences and to screen the evidence, he wrapped cradle saree around her neck to show as if she committed suicide and went away in a hurried manner. At about 4.00 PM, A.1 came along with A.2 as if nothing had happened, and when A2 went to attend calls of nature urgently, A.1 entered into house, raised alarm that the deceased committed suicide and fell unconscious. On hearing the cries, A.2 rushed into the house and lifted the deceased up; A.1 removed cradle saree which was around the neck of the deceased, and on arrival of neighbours, A.1 slipped from there. On completion of investigation, police filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 376, 498A, 304B and 7 201 IPC against A.1, and for the offence punishable under Section 498A, 304B read with 34 IPC against A.2 and A.3.
5. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges for the offences under Sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC against A.1, charges for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 304B read with 34 IPC against A.1 to A.3.
6. When the above charges were read over and explained to the respective accused in Telugu, they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
7. To substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined P.Ws.1 to 21 and got marked Exs.P1 to P31 besides case property - M.Os.1 to 8.
8. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. with reference to the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. They denied the same. On behalf of the accused, no oral evidence was adduced, but Exs.D1 to D4 were got marked.
8
9. The trial Court, basing on the evidence available on record, found A.1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 IPC and found A.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, accordingly convicted them of the said offences and sentenced them, as stated supra, while acquitting A.3 of the charges under Section 304B read with 34 and 498A IPC; acquitting A.2 of the charge under Section 304B read with 34 IPC and acquitting A.1 of the charges under Sections 304B read with 34 IPC, 498A and 201 IPC. Challenging the same, the present Criminal Appeals are filed.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant/A.1 contended that there is no direct evidence that the appellant/A.1 committed the offences, and except the extra-judicial confession Ex.P14 said to have been made by the accused to P.W.16-VRO, there is absolutely no evidence to show that A.1 is guilty of the offences alleged; that there is no evidence to show that A.1 was present in the house at the relevant point of time of the incident; that in view of the fact that extra-judicial confession has been retracted by the accused during trial of the case and the retracted extra- judicial confession has not been corroborated in material 9 particulars, it is not safe to place any reliance on Ex.P14 so as to base a conviction and therefore, he prays to set aside the convictions and sentences recorded against A.1 by the trial Court.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/A.2 contended that there is no cogent or convincing evidence to establish the guilt of A.2 for the charge under Section 498A IPC, and in the absence of same, the learned Sessions Judge erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant/A.2 of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, and hence, he prays to set aside the conviction and sentence recorded against A.2.
12. On the other hand, learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the circumstantial evidence of P.Ws.1, 2, 10, 11 and 16, coupled with extra-judicial confession Ex.P14 made by the accused, and the medical evidence clinchingly establish the guilt of A.1 for the charges levelled against him that he committed rape on the deceased and killed her; that from the evidence on record, it is clear that there was no possibility or scope for any third person to commit the murder of the deceased because it is not a murder for gain; that P.W.16- 10 V.R.O. is an independent witness to whom the accused made extra-judicial confession and if extra-judicial confession is found to be true and trustworthy, it can be acted upon and it can be a sole basis for convicting the accused, and that after elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court rightly convicted the accused and there are no grounds to interfere with the same and hence, he prays to dismiss the appeals.
13. The points for determination are whether the prosecution is able to bring home the guilt of the appellant/A.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 IPC and guilt of the appellant/A.2 for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC, beyond all reasonable doubt and whether the judgment of the trial Court is correct, legal and proper or not ?
14. P.W.15-the then Tahsildar, Nellore deposed in his evidence that he conducted inquest on the dead body of the deceased on 23.08.2012 on receipt of requisition from P.W.19-Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, II Town police station, Nellore in the presence of P.W.13 and others under Ex.P11-inquest report. 11 P.W.13, a mediator for inquest proceedings, corroborated the evidence of P.W.15.
15. P.W.14, Professor in A.C.S.R. Government Medical College, Nellore, deposed that on receipt of requisition from police, he conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased on 23.8.2012 and found the following injuries.
External Injuries:
1)An abrasion on the right knee of size 2 x 1 cms present, brown in colour;
2)An abrasion on inner side of upper lip of 1.5 cm red in colour;
3) Slightly contused on inner side of enter lower lip present.
Internal injuries:
1) Liver deeply contused, black in colour below the deep congestion of intestines present 8 x 4 cms;
2) A linear fracture of base of skull of 4 cms present on right temporal area.
On examination of genital organs, he opined that signs of rape are present and spermatozoa present in vagina. According to him, the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of head injury and blunt 12 injury to abdomen. Ex.P12 is the postmortem examination report issued by P.W.14. He opined that head injury No.2 in internal injuries is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. In cross-examination, he denied a suggestion that all the injuries are possible by a person who strangulates himself. The Doctor's evidence as to the opinion expressed by him and the recitals in Ex.P12 remained unchallenged. So, from the aforesaid evidence, homicidal nature of death of the deceased is established.
16. P.W.1 is brother of the deceased. P.W.2 is mother of the deceased. They deposed that marriage of the deceased with A.2 was performed about four years prior to the date of the incident, and they were blessed with two sons; that the couple lived happily for more than a year after their marriage; thereafter, A.2 was addicted to vices, he was not coming to house timely and not providing food to the deceased and not giving money to run family. It is their further evidence that A.2 spent all the articles presented at the time of marriage for his vices and started demanding the deceased to get money from her parents, and that they gave Rs.5000/- or Rs.10,000/- whenever the deceased 13 came and asked them; that A.2 demanded the deceased to get Rs.50,000/- for purchasing an auto, but they stated that the same would be adjusted after some time, and one month prior to the incident, the deceased, A.1 to A.3 shifted their residence from Venugopala Nagar to Rajeev Gandhi Nagar. It is their further evidence that on 22.8.2012 at about 4.00 PM, two persons by name Pokuri Nagaraju and Mohammed, of Rajeev Gandhi Colony came and informed that the deceased fell unconscious in her house, and on that, P.W.1 and others went to house of the deceased and found A.2 weeping. They found A.1 and A.3 not present in the house. They saw the deceased in an unconscious state, and on that, they brought the deceased to Basheer Hospital at Mypadu gate, Nellore, where the Doctor examined her and declared that she was dead. A.2, who accompanied them to hospital, escaped. It is the evidence of P.W.1 that there were injuries on the head and stomach of the deceased. On that, he lodged Ex.P1-report to police.
17. P.W.11 is another brother of the deceased. He too deposed in the same lines as that of P.Ws.1 and 2. 14
18. P.Ws.3 to 8, who are neighbours, did not support the case of prosecution and they were treated hostile by the prosecution. Though they were cross-examined by the learned Public Prosecutor, nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to connect the accused to the alleged offence.
19. P.W.9 is Registered Medical Practitioner at Mypadu Gate Centre, Nawabpet, Nellore. He deposed that in August, 2012, the deceased was brought to his clinic by P.W.1, and he examined her and declared her as dead.
20. P.W.10 was running a hire shop at Kissan Nagar, Centre, Nellore, where A.1 and A.2 were working as labourer. It is his evidence that on the fateful day, A.1 and A.2 attended his shop and at about 12.00 noon, they left the shop for lunch and returned back to his shop. It is his further evidence that at about 1.45 PM, A.1 left the shop stating that he had some personal work in the house and returned to the shop at 2.45 PM and asked him Rs.100/-, took the amount and went away. Though he was cross-examined by defence, nothing has been elicited to discredit his testimony. It is elicited in cross- examination of P.W.20-investigating officer that P.W.10 stated 15 before him that A.1 left his shop at 12.00 noon and also at 2.45 PM.
21. P.W.16 was working as V.R.O. of Cluster-I Villages of Nellore. It is his evidence that on 24.09.2012, while he was in Tahsildar's office, at about 10.00 AM, A.1 to A.3 came to him and stated that II Town police are intending to apprehend them in connection with a case registered against them with regard to death of the deceased and confessed the commission of the crime before him. He reduced the same in writing and took the accused, along with confessional statement, to police and handed over them to police. It is his evidence that police recorded confessional statement of A.1 to A.3 in their presence and arrested them. He further deposed that pursuant to Ex.P15, police seized M.Os.7-khadi shirt and M.O.8-black and orange coloured flower design lungi, which are clothes of A.1 worn by him on the date of the incident, under Ex.P16- mediators report.
22. P.W.19 is the Sub Inspector of Police, Nellore II Town police station. It is clear from his evidence that basing on Ex.P1-report lodged by P.W.1, he registered a case in crime 16 No.197 of 2012 under Ex.P18-FIR, for the offences punishable under Sections 498A and 306 IPC. He proceeded to the scene of offence, examined and recorded statements of witnesses, observed the scene of offence in the presence of P.W.12 and another under Ex.P10-scene observation report and took photographs under Exs.P19 to P28. He seized M.Os.1, 2, 4 and 5 at the scene of offence under Ex.P10. He prepared Ex.P29- rough sketch of the scene of offence. The evidence of P.W.12- mediator corroborates the evidence of P.W.19. Scene of offence is located at H.No.28-6-144, Rajeev Gandhi Colony, Nellore. The accused are not denying or disputing about the scene of offence.
23. It is the further evidence of P.W.19 that he gave requisition to P.W.15-Tahsildar to conduct inquest over the dead body of the deceased, and after completion of inquest, the dead body was forwarded to Government Hospital for postmortem examination. He further deposed that after receipt of postmortem report on 30.8.2012, he altered section of law from Sections 498A and 306 IPC to 498A, 302 and 376 IPC and issued altered FIR Ex.P30. Thereafter, P.W.17-the then 17 Inspector of Police, East Circle, Nellore took up further investigation and filed Ex.P17-Memo before the Magistrate adding Section 304B IPC. Thereafter, P.W.20-Sub Divisional Police Officer took up further investigation. He recorded confessional statements of the accused and seized M.Os.7 and 8 under cover of Ex.P16. He forwarded the material objects to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Guntur along with letter of advice. Exs.P4 to P9 are the statements of P.Ws.3 to 8. P.W.21-who worked as Sub Divisional Police Officer, Nellore, after receipt of Ex.P31-FSL report and completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet.
24. From the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that there are no eye-witnesses to the incident in question. Entire case of prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence and the extra- judicial confession Ex.P14 made by A.1 before P.W.16.
25. It is the evidence of P.W.2, who is mother of the deceased, that 10 days prior to the incident, the deceased informed her that A.1 was demanding her to fulfil his lust, and on that, she told the deceased not to make it an issue as there would be disruption in the family, and informed the said fact to P.W.1. 18 P.W.1, who is brother of the deceased, also deposed that he was informed by P.W.2 that A.1 demanded the deceased to fulfil his lust. It is elicited in cross-examination of P.W.2 that she stated in her statement under Section 161 CrPC that about a few months back, the deceased came to her and informed the demand of sexual lust of A.1. Therefore, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, it is established that A.1 was advancing sexual advances to the deceased and the deceased informed about the same to them during her life time. As the deceased was resisting to fulfil his desire, A.1 was waiting for an opportunity. This is one circumstance that points the guilt towards A.1.
26. It is clear from the evidence of P.W.10, who is owner of the shop in which A.1 and A.2 were working, that on the fateful day, A.1 and A.2 came back to work at 1.45 PM after finishing lunch, and thereafter, A.1 left the shop stating that he had some personal work in the house and returned to the shop at 2.45 PM, took Rs.100/- from him and went away. From the evidence of P.W.10, it is clear that A.1 was not in the shop during the relevant point of time of the incident. This is another circumstance that points the guilt to A.1. 19
27. Another circumstance that point to the guilt of A.1 is the subsequent conduct of A.1 i.e. he was found absconding for about 40 days after the date of the incident. The other circumstance is finding of semen and spermatozoa on cotton petty coat and on the lungi during the analysis by the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory vide its report Ex.P31.
28. Apart from the aforesaid circumstances, there is extrajudicial confession Ex.P14 made by A.1 before P.W.16. The Court cannot start with the presumption that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. After scrutinizing the extra-judicial confession, if it is found to be true and voluntary, it can be acted upon. In such a case, there is no requirement of law that it should be corroborated on material particulars. In Mulk Raj vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh1, wherein it is held at paragraph No.11 as under:
"We must notice another argument of the learned Advocate at this stage. It is said that the exact words used by the appellant when he made the extra-judicial confession were not given and that therefore the confession should be excluded. P.Ws.1, 5, 6 and 7 repeated before the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1 AIR 1959 SC 902 20 what the appellant stated before them and there is no appreciable difference in the gist of the confession made by the accused. Every one of them stated that the accused had stated that he stabbed the deceased because Amarnath and Milkiraj brought him there to do so. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence in convicting the accused. The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession just like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It is true that the Court requires the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly as possible, but it is not an invariable rule that the Court should not accept the evidence, if not the actual words but the substance were given. If the rule is inflexible that the Courts should insist only on the exact words, more often as not, this kind of evidence, sometimes most reliable and, useful, will have to be excluded; for, except perhaps in the case of a person of good memory, many witnesses cannot repeat the exact words of the accused. It is for the Court having regard to the credibility of the witness, his capacity to understand the language in which the accused made the confession, to accept the evidence or not. In this case, the confession made by the appellant was not a complicated one and the witnesses stated without any conflict practically the exact words used by the appellant and also how they understood the words. In the circumstances, if the evidence of the witnesses is acceptable, there is no reason why the extra-judicial 21 confession made by the accused could not be acted upon."
29. In Piara Singh and others v. State of Punjab2, it is held at paragraph No.10 as under:
"Thus taking an over-all view of the picture presented by the prosecution case we find that there is sufficient evidence against the accused to prove the charge of murder against them. The evidence of the eyewitnesses is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, the evidence of the recoveries, the evidence of the Ballistic expert and the evidence of P. W. Balbir Singh who deposed regarding the extra judicial confession made by the accused Piara Singh. The learned Sessions Judge regarded the extra judicial confession to be a very weak type of evidence and therefore refused to rely on the same. Here the learned Sessions Judge committed a clear error of law. Law does not require that the evidence of an extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. In the instant case, the extra judicial confession was proved by an independent witness who was a responsible officer and who bore no animus against the appellants. There was hardly any justification for the Sessions Judge to disbelieve the evidence of Balbir Singh particularly when the extra judicial confession was corroborated by the recovery of an empty (sic) (cartridge?) from the place of occurrence."2
AIR 1977 SC 2274 22 From the above decisions, it is clear that when the witnesses, who gave evidence about the extra-judicial confession, are reliable and the words spoken by them are precise and manifestly clear, such evidence is sufficient to convict the accused. Bearing the above principles in mind, it has to be seen as to whether the extra-judicial confession made by A.1 is true and voluntary or not.
30. P.W.16 is not related to the accused. He was working as VRO of Cluster-I village of Nellore. It is elicited in his cross- examination that he has no enmity with the accused earlier to the incident. As seen from the evidence of P.W.16, on 24.09.2012, while he was in Tahsildar's office, at about 10.00 AM, A.1 to A.3 came to him and stated that II Town police are intending to apprehend them in connection with a case registered against them with regard to death of the deceased and confessed the commission of the crime before him. He reduced the same in writing and took the accused, along with confessional statement, to police and handed over them to police. P.W.16 is not a total stranger to the accused. He was working as V.R.O.. The extrajudicial confession is proved by an 23 independent witness who was a responsible officer and who bore no animus against the appellants. Since P.W.16 was holding a responsible post of V.R.O. of the village, there was every possibility for the accused to make a confession to him because the police were searching for them. P.W.16 has no enmity against the accused to give a false statement against him. He is totally independent witness. Similarly, He is not related to the deceased so as to help P.W.1 in order to convict the accused. Except suggesting that Ex.P-14 was prepared by the police and A.1 did not confess anything before him, nothing has been elicited in his cross examination so as to doubt his evidence. He appears to be unbiased and not inimical to the accused. From his evidence, it is clear that A.1 made voluntary confession and the same was reduced into writing as in Ex.P14. Evidence of P.W.16 inspires confidence.
31. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that on the fateful day, as the deceased was alone in the house, A.1 came back from work place and forced her for sexual intercourse, and as she resisted the same, he pressed her mouth with hands and fisted in her stomach (abdomen), and when, A.1 tried to commit 24 rape on her and when she tried to escape, he hit her head to the leg of the cot, as a result of which she fell unconscious. Then, A.1 committed rape on her. Thereafter, in order to escape from the offences, the wrapped cradle saree around her neck to show as if she committed suicide and went away in a hurried manner, and created a scene that she committed suicide. Subsequently, P.Ws.1 and 2 were informed that the deceased was lying unconscious. They rushed to the spot and took her to P.W.9-Registered Medical Practitioner, who examined her and declared that she was brought dead.
32. P.W.14-Doctor conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage on account of head injury and blunt injury to abdomen. He also opined that there were signs of rape present on her and spermatozoa present in vagina. P.W.14 further deposed that he conducted potency test on A.1 and was of the opinion that there was nothing to suggest that A.1 is unable to perform sexual intercourse. Ex.P13 is the Potency Certificate issued by P.W.14 in respect of A.1.
25
33. On an analysis of the prosecution side evidence, this Court has no hesitation to hold that there is sufficient evidence against A.1 to prove the charges against them. The evidence of the P.W.16 is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, the evidence with regard to the recoveries. It is settled proposition of law that the evidence of an extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence in convicting the accused. The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession just like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made.
34. After the incident, A.1 ran away from the scene of occurrence. He did not offer any explanation when he was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Non-explanation of A.1 for his presence at the scene of occurrence at the relevant point of time of the incident can be taken as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence coupled with the extra-judicial confession. Therefore, the extrajudicial confession under Ex.P14, coupled with the circumstances stated supra, would 26 clinchingly establish that it is A.1, and none else, is the assailant. The circumstances are so complete and incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of A.1. After elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, the trial Court rightly found A.1 guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 376 I.P.C. and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him and that order needs no interference by this Court. Accordingly, Criminal Appeal Nos. 13 of 2017 and 468 of 2020 are dismissed.
35. As regards appellant/A.2, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 2 and 11, who are close relatives of the deceased shows that after the marriage, the deceased was subjected to cruelty by A.2 demanding additional money. The deceased narrated about the instances of cruelty to her mother and brothers. Their evidence inspires confidence. The learned Sessions Judge, after an elaborate consideration of the evidence on record, rightly found A.2 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC and accordingly convicted him of the said offence. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge as against A.2. 27 However, with regard to sentence, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the age of A.2 and the subsequent conduct of A.2 after the incident in accompanying the deceased to the Doctor, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the offence punishable under Section 498A IPC against A.2 is reduced to the period already undergone by A.2, while maintaining the fine and default sentence. With the aforesaid modification in sentence, Criminal Appeal No.584 of 2016 is dismissed.
Miscellaneous Petitions pending, if any, in the Criminal Appeals shall stand closed.
______________________________ JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY __________________________________ JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY 20.11.2024 DRK 28 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SREENIVASA REDDY COMMON JUDGMENT IN CRIMINAL APPEAL Nos.584 of 2016, 13 of 2017 and 468 of 2020 20.11.2024 DRK