Patnala Venkata Ramana Vs. State of A.P.
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1153 of 2001
Petitioner: Patnala Venkata Ramana
Respondent: State of A.P.
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 1153 of 2001
Judges: N. SANTOSH HEGDE & BISHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 07, 2002
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
Sections 24, 25, 3 with Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Extra-judicial confession – Acceptability – Accused, after committing murder of wife, going to councillor of area in which he was residing – Confession made and recorded and produced immediately to police – If extra judicial confession, not acceptable as made to stranger. Held that the confession made to councillor of area is acceptable.
Held:
PW3 had nothing against the appellant and he being a councillor, it is natural that the appellant should have approached him for the purpose of getting some protection before approaching the police. This confession made to PW3 is further supported by the fact that the scissors belonging to the appellant was found on the neck of the deceased as also MO 3 the bloodstains shirt admittedly belonging to the appellant was found at the place where the appellant and the deceased were living together. In these circumstances, the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence charged against him. (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The appellant was charged for offence punishable under section 302 for having committed murder of his wife Satyaveni before the court of sessions, East Godavery, division at Kakinada. The learned sessions judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal before the High Court having been failed, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
2. The prosecution case briefly is that the appellant had caught the deceased in a compromising position with one Moshe, who was his neighbour, on 11th of October, 1997. Since that day he was insisting that his wife should apologise to him for the said incident which she was refusing to do so. He was also insisting that she should brake her relationship with the said Moshe which also his wife refused to do so. On 14th of October, 1997 at about 10.00 a.m. when there was none else except small child, the appellant came there and insisted his wife for apologising for the conduct of 11th of October, 1997. When she refused to do so he tied her hands and legs and using the scissors which he used in his profession as a tailor, stabbed her six times on her neck. In that process it is stated that he also suffered minor injury on his hand. Thereafter he covered the body of his wife, took his minor child and left her with one Aya who was working in Anganwadi School. It is also stated that the appellant went to PW 3 who happened to be a ward councillor, in which the appellant was the resident, made confession to him by informing him that he had killed his wife. The said confession of the appellant was recorded by PW3 which is exhibit P-1. The further case of the prosecution is that PW3 took the appellant to the police station where along with this report exhibit P-1, he informed the police of the incident. PW15, the investigating officer registered a crime based on the said statement of PW3.
3. Immediately on registering the crime, PW15 took up the investigation, went to the place of incident conducted inquest, he also recovered number of material objects out of which scissor was found stuck to the nect of the deceased and MO.3 the blood stains shirt which belonged to the appellant.
4. During the course of investigation the appellant was sent for medical examination because of the injury in his hand and the appellant was examined by PW13 who, in the course of examination made a record of the statement made to him by the appellant as to how he came to suffer the injury. In that statement appellant admitted that he has killed his wife. The said statement is marked as P-16. Based on the said evidence, as stated above the learned sessions judge convicted the appellant for offence punishable under section 302 IPC and the appeal was dismissed.
5. Mr. Qamaruddin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended before us that the courts below have erred in accepting the so called extra judicial confession to PW3 because of the fact that PW3 was a stranger and there was absolutely no reason why the appellant should make such a confession to a stranger. He also submitted the material witnesses like Moshe with whom the deceased was found on the 11th of October, not having been examined the prosecution case is not free from doubt. Therefore, he pleaded that the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt in this case.
6. We have carefully considered the material on record and also the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties. We are satisfied that the confession made by the appellant to PW3 is acceptable. We have not been able to find any reason why the same should be rejected. PW3 had nothing against the appellant and he being a councillor, it is natural that the appellant should have approached him for the purpose of getting some protection before approaching the police. This confession made to PW3 is further supported by the fact that the scissors belonging to the appellant was found on the neck of the deceased as also MO 3 the bloodstains shirt admittedly belonging to the appellant was found at the place where the appellant and the deceased were living together. In these circumstances, in our opinion the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence charged against him. Having considered the material on record and having heard the counsel we are in agreement with the courts below in accepting the circumstantial evidence and we find no infirmity in the same. The appeal is dismissed.
1. The appellant was charged for offence punishable under section 302 for having committed murder of his wife Satyaveni before the court of sessions, East Godavery, division at Kakinada. The learned sessions judge accepted the prosecution case and convicted the appellant and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. The appeal before the High Court having been failed, the appellant is before us in this appeal.
2. The prosecution case briefly is that the appellant had caught the deceased in a compromising position with one Moshe, who was his neighbour, on 11th of October, 1997. Since that day he was insisting that his wife should apologise to him for the said incident which she was refusing to do so. He was also insisting that she should brake her relationship with the said Moshe which also his wife refused to do so. On 14th of October, 1997 at about 10.00 a.m. when there was none else except small child, the appellant came there and insisted his wife for apologising for the conduct of 11th of October, 1997. When she refused to do so he tied her hands and legs and using the scissors which he used in his profession as a tailor, stabbed her six times on her neck. In that process it is stated that he also suffered minor injury on his hand. Thereafter he covered the body of his wife, took his minor child and left her with one Aya who was working in Anganwadi School. It is also stated that the appellant went to PW 3 who happened to be a ward councillor, in which the appellant was the resident, made confession to him by informing him that he had killed his wife. The said confession of the appellant was recorded by PW3 which is exhibit P-1. The further case of the prosecution is that PW3 took the appellant to the police station where along with this report exhibit P-1, he informed the police of the incident. PW15, the investigating officer registered a crime based on the said statement of PW3.
3. Immediately on registering the crime, PW15 took up the investigation, went to the place of incident conducted inquest, he also recovered number of material objects out of which scissor was found stuck to the nect of the deceased and MO.3 the blood stains shirt which belonged to the appellant.
4. During the course of investigation the appellant was sent for medical examination because of the injury in his hand and the appellant was examined by PW13 who, in the course of examination made a record of the statement made to him by the appellant as to how he came to suffer the injury. In that statement appellant admitted that he has killed his wife. The said statement is marked as P-16. Based on the said evidence, as stated above the learned sessions judge convicted the appellant for offence punishable under section 302 IPC and the appeal was dismissed.
5. Mr. Qamaruddin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant strenuously contended before us that the courts below have erred in accepting the so called extra judicial confession to PW3 because of the fact that PW3 was a stranger and there was absolutely no reason why the appellant should make such a confession to a stranger. He also submitted the material witnesses like Moshe with whom the deceased was found on the 11th of October, not having been examined the prosecution case is not free from doubt. Therefore, he pleaded that the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt in this case.
6. We have carefully considered the material on record and also the arguments addressed on behalf of the parties. We are satisfied that the confession made by the appellant to PW3 is acceptable. We have not been able to find any reason why the same should be rejected. PW3 had nothing against the appellant and he being a councillor, it is natural that the appellant should have approached him for the purpose of getting some protection before approaching the police. This confession made to PW3 is further supported by the fact that the scissors belonging to the appellant was found on the neck of the deceased as also MO 3 the bloodstains shirt admittedly belonging to the appellant was found at the place where the appellant and the deceased were living together. In these circumstances, in our opinion the courts below were justified in coming to the conclusion that the appellant is guilty of the offence charged against him. Having considered the material on record and having heard the counsel we are in agreement with the courts below in accepting the circumstantial evidence and we find no infirmity in the same. The appeal is dismissed.
