Mundlapadi Krishnaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
EmailAppeal: Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 1999.
Petitioner: Mundlapadi Krishnaiah
Respondent: State of Andhra Pradesh
Apeal: Criminal Appeal No. 888 of 1999.
Judges: K.T. THOMAS & R. P. SETHI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 22, 2001
Head Note:
CRIMINAL LAW
Evidence Act, 1872
a) Sections 24, 3 – Extra-judicial confession – Reliability and admissibility – Need of corroboration – Strangulation by ligature – Confession made to PW2 that accused killed his wife by strangu-lating her with a saree – Medical evidence proving strangulation by saree – PW2 approaching his boss PW1 at 1.00 a.m. – Report lodged at 11.00 a.m. – Version told in detail. Held that version of PW2 and FIR and medical evidence provide ample corroboration to extra-judicial confession. Hence, reliable. (Paras 5 to 7)
b) Sections 134, 3 – Witnesses – Extra-judicial confession made by accused to PW2 in presence of his son – Said son not examined – Effects. Held that multiplication of evidence on same point is redundant. (Para 9)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This is a case where Shivamma, wife of the appellant is alleged to have been killed by the appellant by ligature strangu-lation on the night of 18.12.1995. The trial court and the High Court found him guilty of the offence and convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal is by special leave.
2. Shivamma was married to another person, but that marriage did not last long. The appellant had also married another person first but his wife of that first marriage died. Thereafter the appellant took Shivamma as his wife. They had no children.
3. Prosecution case is that the appellant started doubting the fidelity of Shivamma. Some mediation efforts were made to nar-row-down the differences between them. On the intervention of persons like PW4, Shivamma again agreed to live with the appell-ant. This is the background.
4. The case entirely depends upon circumstantial evidence. Among the circumstances the most formidable one, according to the prosecution, is the evidence of PW2 who said that the appellant had told him on the very same night itself that he killed his wife Shivamma by strangulating her with a saree. If the aforesaid extra-judicial confession can be accepted as true and genuine, that by itself can form the basis for conviction. Nonetheless this Court has held in earlier decisions that as a matter of caution the court must seek corroboration for such extra-judicial confession, even if the same is found genuine and true.
5. PW2 said that on being informed by the appellant about what he did to the deceased wife he wanted the appellant to remain in the room and he went to collect his son with whom PW2 went to the house of occurrence and saw the dead body of Shivamma. Thereafter PW2 went back to his house, but by that time the appellant had escaped from there. PW2 then went to his boss-PW1, who was a rice mill owner. On the night at 1.00 a.m. he woke PW1 up from sleep and conveyed the information to him.
6. The First Information Report was lodged by PW1 at 11.00 a.m. on the following day. In that FIR PW1 had given full details of what PW2 had reported to him. PW1 himself testified to the whole details in the court. The trial court and the High Court found the testimony of PW1 quite reliable. The evidence of PW1 as well as the informa-tion contained in the FIR afford corroborative materials for the extra-judicial confession spoken to by PW2.
7. There is yet another circumstance which gives added assurance to the court regarding the truth of the version spoken to by PW2. It was his version that the accused told him about the strangula-tion of Shivamma with a saree. The medical evidence proves to the hilt that Shivamma was killed by ligature strangulation with a saree. Hence that circumstance is also available for corroborat-ing the evidence of PW2.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was delay at two stages. The first was when PW2 communicated the same to PW1 and the second was when PW1 lodged information with the police. But we have not been able to appreciate whether there was any delay at all at either of those stages. PW2 heard the incid-ent from the accused at 11.30 p.m. and informed his boss-PW1 on the same night within an interval of one and a half hours. Apart from the fact that there was no delay, it shows a case of prompt reporting to his boss. That apart, PW1 should be admired for taking the trouble to go to the police station situated 14 kms. away for lodging the information with the police. He did that at 11.00 a.m. Here also there is no cause to blame him that he delayed in giving such information to the police.
9. Learned Counsel then contended that prosecution could have examined the son of PW2 who also would have heard the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. Well, if son was also examined it would have been only an addition to PW2’s version. Such multiplication of evidence on the same point by father and son may be redundant in certain circumstances. This is one like that. Hence, non examination of the son of PW2 is of no conse-quence in this case.
10. In the result we dismiss this appeal.
1. This is a case where Shivamma, wife of the appellant is alleged to have been killed by the appellant by ligature strangu-lation on the night of 18.12.1995. The trial court and the High Court found him guilty of the offence and convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. This appeal is by special leave.
2. Shivamma was married to another person, but that marriage did not last long. The appellant had also married another person first but his wife of that first marriage died. Thereafter the appellant took Shivamma as his wife. They had no children.
3. Prosecution case is that the appellant started doubting the fidelity of Shivamma. Some mediation efforts were made to nar-row-down the differences between them. On the intervention of persons like PW4, Shivamma again agreed to live with the appell-ant. This is the background.
4. The case entirely depends upon circumstantial evidence. Among the circumstances the most formidable one, according to the prosecution, is the evidence of PW2 who said that the appellant had told him on the very same night itself that he killed his wife Shivamma by strangulating her with a saree. If the aforesaid extra-judicial confession can be accepted as true and genuine, that by itself can form the basis for conviction. Nonetheless this Court has held in earlier decisions that as a matter of caution the court must seek corroboration for such extra-judicial confession, even if the same is found genuine and true.
5. PW2 said that on being informed by the appellant about what he did to the deceased wife he wanted the appellant to remain in the room and he went to collect his son with whom PW2 went to the house of occurrence and saw the dead body of Shivamma. Thereafter PW2 went back to his house, but by that time the appellant had escaped from there. PW2 then went to his boss-PW1, who was a rice mill owner. On the night at 1.00 a.m. he woke PW1 up from sleep and conveyed the information to him.
6. The First Information Report was lodged by PW1 at 11.00 a.m. on the following day. In that FIR PW1 had given full details of what PW2 had reported to him. PW1 himself testified to the whole details in the court. The trial court and the High Court found the testimony of PW1 quite reliable. The evidence of PW1 as well as the informa-tion contained in the FIR afford corroborative materials for the extra-judicial confession spoken to by PW2.
7. There is yet another circumstance which gives added assurance to the court regarding the truth of the version spoken to by PW2. It was his version that the accused told him about the strangula-tion of Shivamma with a saree. The medical evidence proves to the hilt that Shivamma was killed by ligature strangulation with a saree. Hence that circumstance is also available for corroborat-ing the evidence of PW2.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that there was delay at two stages. The first was when PW2 communicated the same to PW1 and the second was when PW1 lodged information with the police. But we have not been able to appreciate whether there was any delay at all at either of those stages. PW2 heard the incid-ent from the accused at 11.30 p.m. and informed his boss-PW1 on the same night within an interval of one and a half hours. Apart from the fact that there was no delay, it shows a case of prompt reporting to his boss. That apart, PW1 should be admired for taking the trouble to go to the police station situated 14 kms. away for lodging the information with the police. He did that at 11.00 a.m. Here also there is no cause to blame him that he delayed in giving such information to the police.
9. Learned Counsel then contended that prosecution could have examined the son of PW2 who also would have heard the extra-judicial confession made by the accused. Well, if son was also examined it would have been only an addition to PW2’s version. Such multiplication of evidence on the same point by father and son may be redundant in certain circumstances. This is one like that. Hence, non examination of the son of PW2 is of no conse-quence in this case.
10. In the result we dismiss this appeal.
