1 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
FORM-A [Rule 67(1) of Criminal Rules of Practice]
In the Court of the Special Judge for Trial of Cases Under S.Cs & S.Ts
(P.O.A) Act – Cum – X Addl. District & Sessions Judge, East Godavari At
Rajamahendravaram.
PRESENT: Ms.R.Sreelatha,
Special Judge for Trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act
- cum - X Addl. District Judge, Rajamahendravaram
Friday, the 11th day of April 2025
S.C S.T SC.No.103 of 2017
(Cr.No.27/2013 of Ambajipeta Police Station)
COMPLAINANT:State – Sub Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram.
REPRESENTED By:(I/c)Special Public Prosecutor.
ACCUSED:1. Sri Kumpatla Prasada Rao @ Prasad @ Dula Prasad, S/O (late) Srinivasarao, Aged 23 years, Caste : Kapu, D.No.12-52, Metla colony Machavaram village, Ambajipeta Mandal.(Died)
2.Sri Medisetti Yedukondalu @ Konda, S/O Nageswara Rao, Aged 48 years, Caste : Kapu, Metla Colony, Ambajipeta Mandal.
3. Sri Tarapatla Nagaraju, S/O Lazar, Aged 25 years, Caste : SC Mala, Mokavaraipeta, Metla Colony, Ambjapeta Mandal. (Died)
4. Sri Koppineedi Durga Prasad, S/O Rangarao, Aged 31 years, Caste : Kapu, D.No.11-36A, 2 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
Metla colony, Machavaram village, Ambajipeta Mandal. (Case against accused Nos.1 and 3 is abated as per the orders dt.24.10.2018 and 02.12.2021 respectively. )
REPRESENTED BY:Sri G.Annaji Rao, Sri G.Mahalakshmi Advocates. FORM-B [Rule 67(2) of Criminal Rules of Practice]
Date of Offence:09.04.2013
Date of F.I.R:10.04.2013
Date of Charge sheet:28.08.2017
Date of Framing of Charges:02.12.2021
Date of commencement of evidence:12.02.2025
Date on which Judgment is reserved:09.04.2025
Date of the Sentencing Order, if any:11.04.2025
Accused Details :
Rank of the Accused:Accused Nos.1 to 4.
Name of the Accused:1. Sri Kumpatla Prasada Rao @ Prasad @ Dula Prasad, S/O (late) Srinivasarao, Aged 23 years, Caste : Kapu, D.No.12-52, Metla colony Machavaram village, Ambajipeta Mandal.(Died)
2. Sri Medisetti Yedukondalu @ Konda, S/O Nageswara Rao, Aged 48 years, Caste : Kapu, Metla Colony, Ambajipeta Mandal.
3. Sri Tarapatla Nagaraju, S/O Lazar, Aged 25 years, 3 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
Caste : SC Mala, Mokavaraipeta, Metla Colony, Ambjapeta Mandal. (Died)
4. Sri Koppineedi Durga Prasad, S/O Rangarao, Aged 31 years, Caste : Kapu, D.No.11-36A, Metla colony, Machavaram village, Ambajipeta Mandal. (Case against accused Nos.1 and 3 is abated as per the orders dt.24.10.2018 and 02.12.2021 respectively. )
Date of Arrest:Accused Nos.1 to 4 are regularised in this case on execution of P.T. warrants.
Date of Release on bail:Accused No.2 was released on 01.12.2016. Accused No.4 was released on 01.09.2016.
Offences Charged with:The Accused Nos.2 and 4 are charged with the offences under sections 302 r/w 34, 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C and section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act.
Whether acquitted or convicted:Acquitted.
Sentence imposed: --
Period of detention undergone during : -- Trial for purpose of Section 468 of B.N.S.S 2023.
This Sessions case is coming on 07.04.2025 for final hearing before me in the presence of In-charge Special Public Prosecutor for the prosecution and of Sri G.Annaji Rao, Sri G.Maha Lakshmi, advocates for the Accused Nos.2 and 4 and upon perusing the material evidence on record and having stood over for determination till this day, this court delivered the following :
4 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
J U D G M E N T
The Sub Divisional Police Officer, Amalapuram has filed the charge sheet against the accused for the offences under Sections 302, 376 r/w 511 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code (herein after referred to as I.P.C.) and under section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Amendment Act 2015 (No.1 of 2016) in Cr.No.27/2013 of Ambajipeta Police Station.
2.Sans details, facts in brief, germane are as follows :-
The deceased Ms. Ethakota Satyavathi has got three children i.e.,
P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5. The deceased was living in her thatched house and her children were residing elsewhere. On 09.04.2013 at about 21.30 hours, the deceased took bath by closing the doors of her house. The accused Nos.1 to 4 who were chitchatting at the tank of Metla colony,
Ambajipeta at that time developed an evil intention to have sexual intercourse with the deceased taking advantage of her loneliness. So, at 22.30 hours, the accused went to the house of the deceased and out of them, accused
No.3 and 4 were watching outside, while the accused Nos.1 and 2 have entered the house stealthily. Accused Nos.1 and 2 then asked the deceased to satisfy their lust and at that time, the deceased was wearing only blouse and petticoat. When the deceased did not accept and cried out, the accused
No.3 and 4 also entered the house. Then, the accused Nos.1 and 2 caught hold of her tuft and made her fall on the ground. Accused No.1 gagged her mouth by squatting on her chest and the accused No.2 caught hold of her legs tightly. The Accused No.3 and 4 have fisted her on her face. On noticing the blood oozing out from her nose and mouth, the accused could confirm that the deceased has died and they escaped from the house from the rear side door. Basing on the report of the sons of the deceased 5 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
dt.10.04.2018, the case was registered under section 174 Cr.P.C and the investigating officer i.e., P.W.11 took up the investigation. As no foul play was suspected and as there was no material suggesting that the death was homicidal, the case was referred as “action dropped”.
Pertaining to Cr.No.31/2016 of Ambajipeta Police station, the accused
No.1 made extra judicial confession that he committed that murder and also confessed about committing the present offence i.e., murder of Ms.Ethakota
Satyavathi. In view of this confession of the accused No.1 again, the
Inspector of police of Ambajipeta police station has registered the altered
F.I.R under sections 302, 376 r/w 511 r/w 34 of I.P.C and section 3(2)(v) of
S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act.
Basing on the extra judicial confession of accused No.1, he was later regularised in this case. The other accused were also regularised on P.T.
warrants basing on this confession of accused No.1. The Police custody of the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 was taken and they were interrogated and later, the accused No.2 was also taken to police custody. As the material disclosed that the accused have committed the alleged offences against the deceased
Ms.E.Satyavathi, the charge sheet is filed for the offences under sections
Sections 302, 376 r/w 511 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and under section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs &
S.Ts (P.O.A) Amendment Act 2015 (No.1 of 2016).
3.The Cognizance of the case was taken against the Accused for the offences under sections 302, 376 r/w 511 r/w 34 of I.P.C. and under section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs & S.Ts. (P.O.A.) Act. The summonses are issued to the Accused and on their appearance, the case copies are furnished to them as required under Section 207 of Cr.P.C.
6 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
4.After the case against the accused Nos.1 and 3 is abated as per the orders dt.24.10.2018 and 02.12.2021 respectively, the accused Nos.2 and 4 are examined under Section 228 Cr.P.C. The charge under sections 302 r/w 34, 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C and under section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act are framed against the accused Nos.2 and 4, read over and explained to them in their vernacular language, for which they have pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5.During the course of the trial, the prosecution has examined
P.Ws.1 to 13, got marked Exs.P1 to P20 and no material objects are exhibited. Ex.D1 is marked during the cross examination of P.W.1.
P.W.1, P.W.3 and P.W.5 are the sons of the deceased. P.W.2 is the neighbour and a circumstantial witness. P.W.4 is the V.R.O before whom the accused No.1 made extra judicial confession regarding the murders committed by him and other accused. Accused No.1 was handed over to police by this P.W.4. P.W.6 took the photographs of the scene of offence and the dead body. P.W.7 is the mediator for the scene observation report, inquest etc. P.W.8 is the mediator of the confessional statement of the accused No.2. P.W.10 is the Tahsildar who issued caste certificates and
P.Ws.11 to 13 are the Investigating Officers of this case.
6.After the completion of the prosecution side evidence, the accused Nos.2 and 4 are examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as to the incriminating material appearing in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, for which, they have denied the same and reported no defence evidence.
7 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
7.Arguments heard.
The learned in-charge Special Public Prosecutor has submitted that initially, the case was closed after the investigation by police and at that time, the police could not get any clues. Basing on the extra judicial confession of the accused No.1 and on the information given, the case was re-opened and further investigation was taken up. According to him, there are no reasons to doubt the alleged extra judicial confession of accused No.1 and basing on the same, the role of other accused came to light and they were also regularized on P.T. warrants. He has sought to decide the guilt of the accused Nos.2 and 4 basing on the above material. According to him, the prosecution has placed all the relevant material on record for deciding the guilt of the accused.
Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused has submitted written arguments as well as oral arguments to the effect that after the initial investigation, the action was dropped and only basing on the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused No.1, the other accused are also roped in and that their alleged confessions are created by the police. He has sought to disbelieve the evidence of the V.R.O i.e., P.W.4 and has pointed out the defects in his evidence. According to him, Ex.P8 is a concocted document and even the signature/thumb impression of accused No.1 is not obtained in
Ex.P8. The photographer took the photoes only upon the directions of the police and there is reference to the evidence of P.W.9 Doctor and actually one Dr. Veerayya has conducted the post mortem examination, but not this
P.W.9. The learned counsel for the accused Nos.2 and 4 has relied on the citations and contended that the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and ordinarily, corroboration is expected to believe the alleged extra judicial confession. The principles for considering the extra judicial statement 8 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
are reiterated in the written arguments and it is sought to dis-believe the alleged extra judicial confession of accused No.1 which is not even binding on the present accused. It is put forth that the extra judicial confession is surrounded by the suspicious circumstances. It is prayed to acquit the accused Nos.2 and 4.
8.Now the point that arises for determination is Whether the prosecution
could bring home the guilt of the accused Nos.2 and 4 for the alleged
offences under sections 302 r/w 34, 376 r/w 511 of I.P. C and under
section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act beyond reasonable doubt?
8(a).To prove the offence under section 302 r/w 34 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish that the accused in furtherance of their common intention have committed the murder of the deceased by making her fall on ground, thereby causing head injury due to which, blood oozed out from her nose, mouth and she died.
8(b). To prove the offence under section 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C., the prosecution has to establish that the accused have attempted to commit rape on the deceased when she was alone in her house.
8(c). To prove the offence under section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A)
Act, the prosecution has to establish that the accused Nos.2 and 4, who are not the members of the schedule caste or schedule tribe have committed the offence of murder punishable with imprisonment for more than ten years under Indian Penal Code against the deceased Ms.E.Satyavathi, knowing fully well that she belongs to schedule caste.
9.The decision thereon :- In the result, the accused Nos.2 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 376 r/w 511 9 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
of I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property is exhibited in this case.
10. The reasons for the decision :-
The perusal of the Ex.P1 report lodged by the sons of the deceased i.e., P.W.1 and P.W.3 goes to show that on 09.04.2013 at about 10.30 (not specifically mentioned whether it is A.M. or P.M.), the deceased was found to have died suspiciously. On that day, morning, at about 09.30 A.M., the brother of the informants tried to contact his mother, through the neighbour by name Sai Kumar. When this Sai Kumar went to hand over the mobile phone to his mother, he has noticed that by then, Ms.E.Satyavathi has died and this was informed over phone to the younger brother of the informants and the neighbours were also informed. Thereafter, the sons of deceased came to the house and felt that the death was suspicious. The deceased was wearing clothes in which she took bath. Hence, the matter was informed to police after careful observation of the dead body. It is specifically mentioned that about 20 days back, at about 7.00 P.M., unknown persons tried to set their house ablaze and prior to that also, the neighbours namely Yesubabu and
Subbalakshmi were frequently quarrelling with the deceased and the police have solved the earlier disputes. Suspicion is expressed that some one might have committed the offence against the deceased and the sons of the deceased were residing at Hyderabad and Karnataka for sake of their livelihood. Taking advantage of the same, it was suspected that the offence is committed against the deceased. It is prayed to take action.
This was registered on 09.04.2013 at 01.15 P.M.
10 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
11.First of all, this court intends to examine the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3 and 5 who are the sons of the deceased. P.W.1 who is one of the informants has deposed that when he was at his in-law’s house in the year 2013, when his younger brothers i.e., P.Ws.3 and 5 were also out of the village, his mother was alone in the house. At about 09.00 A.M., he got the news that his mother has died and he rushed to the house and found the door open. He has noticed the dead body of his mother i.e., deceased Ms.
E.Satyavathi. He found blood oozing out from the nose and ears of the mother and the face was red in colour and they suspected that some one has killed his mother and he lodged Ex.P1 report. Later, in the year 2016 i.e., after 3 years, he came to know that the accused have killed his mother and his statement was again recorded by the police.
He admits during the cross-examination that Ex.P1 does not disclose about the oozing of the blood from the nose and ears of his mother and that there is mention in Ex.P1 that he has carefully examined his mother. He states that the distance between the water tank and his house is less than half K.M. The version of the accused that due to water scarcity, the villagers were procuring water even during the night hours during that period was denied by him. Admittedly, there are residential houses surrounding his house. He denies to have stated as in Ex.D1 during his section 161 Cr.P.C.
statement to the police. But this alleged contradiction is not proved through the Investigation Officer who recorded his statement and hence, it cannot be looked into for any purpose. Ex.D1 is to the effect that his mother was quarreling with the neighbours and that her mental state of mind was not good.
Though P.W.1 admits that his mother had disputes with neighboursand that earlier, some body tried to set ablaze their house when she was alone at 11 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
the house, he denies the version of his mother accidentally falling down and sustaining head injury due to which, she has died.
11(a).The testimony of the other son i.e, P.W.3 is also to the effect that in the year 2013, when his mother was alone in the house, he was informed by the neighbours about the death of his mother. He found his mother’s face swollen, black in colour and blood oozing out from the nose and ears. Even he has stated that he suspected that somebody killed their mother. In the year 2016 i.e., three years thereafter, they came to know that the accused have killed his mother. He is also one of the informants of Ex.P1 and the alleged omission elicited from this witness regarding the oozing of the blood is also not proved through the Investigating officer and hence, cannot be looked into. Even though no omission is elicited from P.W.3 to the effect that the mental state of the mind of the deceased was not good, such version was straight away put to the Investigation officer i.e, P.W.11. This witness i.e,
P.W.3 also denies that his mother has died accidentally due to the fall on the ground.
11(b). P.W.5, another son of the deceased states that he went to
Hyderabad for mason works and at that time, on 09.04.2013, he has called his mother over the mobile phone of his neighbour i.e., P.W.2. When P.W.2 went to hand over the phone to his mother, he found her dead and the death is in suspicious circumstances. He saw his mother’s dead body at Area
Hospital, Amalapuram and the blood was oozing from the nose, ears of his mother and her face is swollen. He too has suspected that somebody might have killed her. In the year 2016, police have informed them that his mother was killed by the accused persons. It is also elicited from P.W.5 that some body tried to set their house ablaze while his mother was alone at her house and that she had disputes with her neighbours. This version is admitted by 12 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
P.W.1 also. This witness has also denied the version of the deceased accidentally falling down on the ground, sustaining head injury and her death on account of the same.
12.At this juncture, if the testimony of P.W.2 i.e., the neighbour of the deceased who was contacted by P.W.5 is perused, he states that the deceased is his neighbour and on the date of the alleged incident in the year 2013, P.W.5 has called on his father’s mobile and he was asked to give mobile to his mother. When this P.W.2 went to the house of the deceased to hand over the mobile, he has noticed that she was not outside and so, he went inside the house. Then, he noticed the dead body of Ms.Satyavathi. Her entire face was swollen and immediately, he informed this to his father. His father has later informed to others and the sons of the deceased.
So, the evidence of P.Ws.1, 3, 5 coupled with the testimony of P.W.2 clearly establishes that Ms. Satyavathi was alone in the house. Her death was first noticed by her neighbour i.e., P.W.2 during morning hours when he went to hand over the mobile as P.W.5 has called his mother on that phone.
The entire face was swollen and blood was oozing from the nose and ears of the deceased. So, the death is definitely suspicious, but the possibility of accidental fall cannot be ruled out.
13.If the testimony of P.W.6 is taken up who is the photographer, he has visited the house of the deceased at Metla colony and took the photographs of the dead person i.e., Ex.P2 (marked along with the CD and section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act certificate). The photographs clearly reveal that the deceased was hardly wearing blouse and petticoat and the blood oozed out from her nose, ears and she was lying in a pool of blood.
There is nothing much elicited from this photographer regarding the 13 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
taking of the photographs at the instance of the police. He has clarified that for studio cameras, there is no possibility of date and time coming on the photographs. So, there is nothing to doubt from his evidence that he did not take the photographs of the dead body at the scene of offence. Even the photographs goes to show that the death is suspicious.
13(a). P.W.7 is the V.R.O who has acted as a mediator for the scene observation report under Ex.P5 along with L.W.13 Srinivasarao. Now, this
Srinivasarao is no more. The rough sketch was drawn and Ex.P2 photographs were taken pertaining to the deceased by the photographer at the time of inquest. There is nothing to doubt that the photographs of the dead body were taken at the time of inquest while the dead body was at the scene of offence. This Ex.P3 was conducted at about 1.30 noon and on the same day, inquest was held at 04.00 P.M. over the dead body of the deceased Ms.Satyavathi. Relatives were also present at that time and the death is not a natural death as opined by them. Someone might have pressed her neck or she might have died naturally due to health reasons. The scene observation report under Ex.P3 need not disclose about taking of the photographs and about drawing the rough sketch by the police. Infact, there is nothing elicited from P.W.7 that the photographs were taken before conducting the scene observation report and that the rough sketch was also drawn by the Sub Inspector even before conducting the Ex.P3.
P.W.7 has stated that Ex.P4 Inquest was conducted at the scene of offence and infact, the Ex.P4 recitals also reflects the same. Ofcourse, there is mention in inquest also that the deceased was picking up quarrels with the neighbours and that she was alone in the house on 08.04.2013 evening. It is elicited by the accused from this witness that column No.15 of Ex.P4 contains all these details that she was alone on 08.04.2013 evening and that she slept at about 14 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
10.00 P.M. and that when the 2nd son of the deceased has called her from
Hyderabad over the mobile, this Sai Kumar took the mobile to her house and on opening the doors, he found the dead body in suspicious circumstances.
This column No.15 also reveals that her mental state of mind was not that good. In what way, this mental state of mind of the deceased is relevant for deciding the present case is not brought on record by the accused.
13(b).The testimony of P.W.9 i.e., the medical officer goes to show that she has not conducted the post mortem examination and that one Dr.Verayya who was the C.A.S at Area Hospital, Amalapuram has conducted the post mortem examination. P.W.9 has deposed about the post mortem examination conducted by Dr.Veerayya over the dead body of the deceased
Ms.Satyavathi and the external injuries noticed on the dead body are as follows :
1) Blush dis-colouration and swelling of entire face, upper region of chest with engorged blueish dis-colouration of veins of chest.
2) Bleeding from both nostrils.
3) Ant bite marks are present over the body.
4) Swelling of right temporal region with Hematoma.
Thereafter, the viscera was sent for R.F.S.L. On receipt of Ex.P5, final report was given under Ex.P6 to the effect that the cause of death is due to
Sub-archenoid Hemorrhage present in the right temporal region, both parietal region and right occipital region with hematoma on right temporal region caused by head injury.
So, from this Ex.P7 post mortem report and the evidence of P.W.9, it can be safely held that the death is due to head injury. Whether that head injury was caused by anyone or whether she fell down accidentally and has sustained that injury has to be decided basing on the other evidence on 15 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
record and Ms.E.Satyavathi is no more to speak about the same. This P.W.9 does not deny the possibility of occurrence of death due to accidental slip and fall on the ground, due to which if any head injury has occurred.
14.There is no dispute that the accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 are OC kapus by caste, while the accused No.3 is SC – mala by caste. The deceased is SC–Jambava by caste as seen from the caste certificate of the deceased under Ex.P20. The caste certificate of P.W.1 is also exhibited as
Ex.P19. The castes of the deceased and accused are not being disputed by the accused and P.W.10, the then Tahsildar is examined by the prosecution to speak about the caste certificates of the accused.
15. Now, this court proceeds to scrutinize the evidence of P.Ws.11 to 13 who are the Investigating Officers of this case.
It is relevant to mention here that there are no direct/independent witnesses for the incident and this case rests on the circumstantial evidence.
Only basing on the extra judicial confession of the accused No.1 given in
Cr.No.31/2016 of Ambajipeta Police station to P.W.4 i.e,. the V.R.O. revealing the commission of present offence also, the accused No.1 so also, the other accused are being tried for the present offences. Ofcourse, there is alleged admissible confessions of the accused Nos.1 to 4 also recorded after taking the accused for police custody pertaining to their involvement in the present case.
Hence, the primary issue herein involves the determination of the requirements for deciding a case of circumstantial evidence. So, if the prosecution wants this court to convict the accused basing on the circumstantial evidence produced, this court has to apply the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a plethora of cases, some of which are reiterated as herein ; 16 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
In R.shaji Vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2013 SC 5651, it was held, “the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive any strength from the weaknesses in the defence put up by the accused. However, a false defence may be brought to notice, only to lend assurance to the Court as regard the various links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, which are in themselves complete. The circumstances on the basis of which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn, must be fully established. The same must be of a conclusive nature and must exclude all possible hypothesis, except the one to be proved. Facts so established must be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and the chain of evidence must be complete, so as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must further show, that in all probability, the said offence must have been committed by the accused.” Also, similar prominent observations are made in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622. (In this case, the five golden principles are refered to as panchasheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence) and in
Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2011 SC 2000.
16.For the discussion already made, it is evident that the prosecution could establish the death of Ms.E.Satyavathi due to head injury. If it is due to accidental fall or due to the accused pushing her on to the ground while attempting to commit the rape has to be decided and this is the crux of the case. It is needless to state here that prior to P.W.4 bringing the accused
No.1 to the police station after recording Ex.P8, even the family members of the deceased had no suspicion against any of the accused. Though the accused also belong to Ambajipeta, they have got nothing to do with the family of the deceased. So, this extra judicial confession given to P.W.4 is the 1st clue 17 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
regarding the involvement of accused No.1 in this case. it is also the prosecution case that this confession of the accused No.1 led to the disclosure of the involvement of the other accused also. All the circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused are to be established by the prosecution.
17. P.W.11 was the Sub Inspector of Ambajipeta police station during the relevant time of the incident. According to him, on 09.04.2013 at about 1.15 P.M., while he was present at the police station, P.W.1 came to the police station and lodged Ex.P1 report. Basing on the same, he has registered F.I.R under section 174 Cr.P.C under Ex.P14. Thereafter, he has visited the scene of offence, observed the scene, got photographed the scene of offence, conducted scene observation report under Ex.P3 in the presence of P.W.7 and another mediator and thereafter, the inquest was held. He later, has shifted the dead body for post mortem examination after recording the statements of the witnesses. The R.F.S.L. report was to the effect that there was no poison and due to head injury, the deceased has died. As there was no other evidence regarding any suspected person, by placing requisition
before the Sub Divisional Police Officer, further action was dropped. Later,
he got transferred. So, he is the 1st Investigating Officer who has closed this case and there are S.D.P.O proceedings under Ex.P16 dt.04.03.2014 to drop action.
Though Ex.D1 in the evidence of P.W.1 was not specifically put to this
Investigating officer, it was elicited that the mental state of mind of the deceased was not good as stated by P.Ws.1 and 3. The report itself discloses that the deceased had disputes with the neighbours and so, this aspect needs no much discussion. He admits that Ex.P16 discloses that the 18 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
house was bolted from inside. But the walls were built up with coconut leaves according to him.
17(a).Adverting to the testimony of P.W.13 who was the Circle
Inspector of Amalapuram circle during the relevant time, he has deposed that on 06.04.2016, the Accused No.1 was brought to the police station by P.W.4 along with the report under Ex.P9 and the extra judicial confession of accused No.1 recorded by him is Ex.P8. The accused No.1 was arrested in
Cr.No.31/2016 of Ambajipeta Police Station and during that extra judicial confession, it came to light that the accused No.1 was involved in three more cases including the present case. Then, he has secured the mediators and got recorded the confessional statement of the accused No.1 at the police station and he has disclosed his involvement in three crimes. This alleged confession is hit by section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act and hence, this confessional statement is not marked at all. Later, he has arrested the accused Nos.2 and 3 on different dates and sent them to judicial custody. He gave intimation to the Sub Divisional police officer about the arrest of the accused No.1 who was involved in several cases and about the arrest of accused persons involved in this crime. This witness admits that Ex.P8 does not disclose the signature of Accused No.1.
17(b).Now, it is relevant to mention here that only basing on this information given by P.W.13, Cr.No.27/2013 of Ambajipeta was re-opened which was initially registered under section 174 Cr.P.C and further action was earlier dropped. P.W.12 the then Sub Divisional Police Officer has permitted for the same. Thereafter, the section of law was altered to sectiond 302, 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C. r/w 34 of I.P.C and section 3(2)(V) of S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A)
Act. The altered F.I.R is Ex.P17. As per the proceedings of the 19 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
Superintendent of police, P.W.12 himself was appointed as Investigating
Officer of this case since there are offences under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act.
P.W.12 has deposed that he has obtained the caste certificates, re-examined the witnesses and got regularized accused Nos.1 to 4 on P.T. warrants from
Cr.No.31/2016 of Ambajipet.
In this case, P.W.12 took the police custody of accused No.1, 3 and 4 at one instance and recorded the confessional statements of these accused.
On 26.06.2016, he took the police custody of accused No.2 and in the presence of P.W.8 and Srinivasarao, he has interrogated the accused No.2 and these confessions cannot be looked into since hit by section 25 of the
Indian Evidence Act.
P.W.8 has also deposed about the accused No.2 being interrogated in his presence by the Deputy Superintendent of police, Amalapuram at police station, Ambajipeta and his evidence does not require much discussion since the alleged confession of accused No.2 was made in the presence of police.
After the completion of the investigation, P.W.12 has filed charge sheet. It is elicited from this P.W.12 that P.W.4 was working as V.R.O of Ambajipeta from 01.10.2015 onwards and that Metla colony is a small ward in
Machavaram village. P.W.12 admits about three crimes being committed against senior citizens during the relevant time and denies that due to public anger against the police department on account of these crimes, the accused are falsely implicated in this case.
18.Now that the entire case rests on the extra judicial confession made by the accused No.1 before P.W.4 and the alleged confession of accused No.1 disclosing the guilt of his co-accused i.e., accused No.2 to 4 also, his testimony has to be carefully scrutinised. P.W.4 has deposed that 20 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
while he was the V.R.O of Machavaram village, the accused No.1 belonging to Machavaram village came to his office on 04.06.2016 at 09.00 A.M. and confessed about beating one Kotayya along with other accused herein. As said Kotayya died, police were searching for them. Further, he has confessed about killing one Muddeti Sarojini along with other accused in the year 2015 and that on 08.04.2013, he tried to commit rape of Ms. Ethakota
Satyavathi along with the accused Nos.2 to 4 and in that process, they killed her as she did not consent for the same. After recording the entire extra judicial confession of the accused No.1, he has handed over him to
Ambajipeta police along with the statement under Ex.P8 recorded by him.
Again, he was called by the Ambajipeta police on 22.05.2016 and by then, the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 were in police custody and they confessed the present offence. He has handed over the accused No.1 along with Ex.P9 report. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the accused, this extra judicial confession under Ex.P8 does not even bear the signature or thumb impression of the accused No.1 As seen from Ex.P8, it was recorded from 09.00 A.M. to 12.00 A.M. on 04.06.2016. P.W.4 admits that his office is in a busy locality and that he took three hours for recording Ex.P8. The distance between his office and the police station can be covered in 15 minutes and his version is that since one year prior to the Ex.P8, he was working there as V.R.O. Significantly, the date or month is not elicited.
18(a).P.W.4 admits that he has no prior acquaintance with the accused
No.1 by the date of Ex.P8 and he does not belong to his caste or age. There is no mention in Ex.P8 that this statement was read over and explained to the accused No.1 and when put questions in this regard, P.W.4 has stated that he is not sure if the same is mentioned in Ex.P8 or not. This V.R.O also admits about three suspicious deaths of senior citizens during that period 21 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
at Metla colony and denies that the police have used him to close these cases. He has clarified that Ex.P9 was scribed at the police station. It appears he did not scribe the confessional statement on 22.05.2016 and it is scribed by the constable.
It is relevant to mention that there is no recovery pertaining to the present offence except the alleged oral confession made by the accused No.1.
19. In this case on hand, the case against the accused No.1 is abated and the prosecution wants this court to rely on the extra judicial confession of the accused No.1 to convict the co-accused i.e., accused Nos.2 and 4 herein.
19(a). This court proceeds to delineate the issues that arise for consideration as follows :
(1)Whether this extra judicial confession of accused No.1 is admissible, credible and sufficient to convict the co-accused i.e., the accused Nos.2 & 4.
(2)Whether the chain of the circumstantial evidence is complete and consistent for arriving at the conclusion of the guilt of the accused persons.
20. It is no more res integra that the extra judicial confession must be accepted with more care and caution. If it not supported by other evidence on record, it fails to inspire confidence and in such a case, it shall not be treated as a strong piece of evidence for the purpose of arriving at the conclusion of guilt. Furthermore, the extent of the acceptability of an extra judicial confession depends on the trustworthiness of the witness before whom it is given and the circumstances under which it was given. The prosecution must establish that a confession was indeed made by the accused No.1, that it was 22 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
voluntary in nature and that the contents of the confession are true. The standard required for proving an extra judicial confession to the satisfaction of the Court is on the higher side and these essential ingredients must be established beyond any reasonable doubt. The standard becomes even higher when the entire case of the prosecution rests on the extra judicial confession of accused No.1 alone, that too to bind the co-accused.
20(a).The observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in Kalinga @ Kushal v.
state of Karnataka by police inspector Hubli in Crl.Appeal No.622/2013 dt.20.02.2024 are very relevant for analyzing the extra judicial confession in the case.
Generally, the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence.
However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful.
It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such
confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by
the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide
about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he
has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to
someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to satisfy with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. If an extra judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility. In Pawan Kumar Chourasia vs The State Of Bihar dated 14 March 2023 of Hon’ble Apex Court, there is discussion even about the circumstances in support of the extra judicial confession.
20(b).So, what made the accused No.1 to make confession before this
P.W.4 who is a total stranger to him is very suspicious in the case on hand 23 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
and in the light of the observations by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pawan
Kumar Chourasia case.
21.Considering section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, nodoubt the confession of the co-accused if proved, may be taken into consideration.
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act addresses the admissibility of the confession made by one accused against the other accused. But the same can be considered only in conjunction with other evidences. But here, the alleged extra judicial confession of the accused No.1 itself is not of sterling quality. The concept of evidentiary value of extra judicial confession was discussed in detail in the Constitutional Bench judgment in Haricharan
Kurmi v. state of Bihar reported in AIR 1964 SC 1184in which the court came to the conclusion that an extra-judicial confession can only be used to strengthen the opinion formed by the Court after perusing other pieces of evidence placed on record. It was held that the court cannot start with the confession, rather it has to begin with the other evidence and after it has formed an opinion with regard to the quality and effect of said evidence, can it turn to the confession for receiving an assurance to the conclusion of guilt which the judicial mind is about to reach from such other evidence.
21(a).Thus, extra judicial confession with the corroboration of the evidence presented to the Court by the prosecution can prove to be the last nail in the coffin and if not corroborated and found to be the one inspiring confidence, can be discarded altogether.
Upon the proper analysis of the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused are :- 24 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.
(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.
(iii) It should inspire confidence.
(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.
21(b). Furthermore, the confession made by the co- accused is not a substantive evidence by itself, but can be used to lend assurance to other existing evidence and it cannot be the sole basis for convicting the other accused. This confession can be considered to confirm or strengthen other evidence that already exists against the co-accused. First of all the court must be satisfied that the other evidence is strong enough to sustain the charge.
Then alone, the confession of the accused can be used to lend assurance to that conclusion.
It is clarified by the Hon’ble Apex Court recently in Subramanya vs. State
of Karnataka reported in 2022 LiveLaw(SC)887 dt.13.10/2022 in Crl. Appeal
No.242/2022 that the confession of the co-accused could not be relied on as substantive evidence and that the extra judicial confession is also corroborative piece of evidence. There is discussion regarding the circumstantial evidence and the inferences that can be drawn and it is reiterated the extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and requires appreciation with great deal of care and caution.
21(c).In the case on hand without this extra judicial confession of accused
No.1, there is no other material to form an opinion about the culpability of 25 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
accused Nos.2 and 4 and hence, the question of framing opinion basing on other evidence does not arise. Consequently, question of turning on to Ex.P8 for assurance of guilt of the conclusion also does not arise. Even on analysing the evidence of P.W.4, he was not belonging to that place and he had no prior acquaintance with the accused No.1. When the V.R.O is a stranger to him, the accused No.1 approaching this V.R.O to make extra judicial confession is not much believable and Ex.P8 is not trustworthy at all.
22.For the reasons best known, the same mediator is again secured for recording the confessions of the accused Nos.1, 3 and 4. Nearly after three years of the incident, the accused No.1 apart from making the confession in Cr.No.31/2016, making confession pertaining to this crime also is definitely not believable and by then, this case was closed. So, this court has hesitation to convict the accused Nos.2 and 4 basing on the extra judicial confession of accused No.1 alone and it is not binding on these accused.
This is a weak piece of evidence and is suspicious. So, viewed from any angle, this court is of the opinion that the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused are not established. The conclusion of the guilt of the accused cannot be drawn from the circumstances placed on record by the prosecution and the facts that could be established are not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
22(a). The learned counsel for the accused has rightly relied upon the citation of Hon’ble Apex Court in Sahadevan and another vs. State of Tamil
Nadu in Criminal Appeal No.1405 of 2008 dated 08th May, 2012
regarding the test of credibility for acceptance of extra judicial confession and upon the citation of the Hon’ble High Court of Telangana dated 20 th
September, 2018 in Crl. Appeal No.655/2013 between Gopi Another vs.
26 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
The State of A.P., Re. By P.P. about the weight that can be attached to extra-judicial confession.
Hence, this court is of the opinion that the guilt of the accused is not established beyond every reasonable doubt. Basing on the surmises and suspicion, the accused No.2 and 4 cannot be held guilty for any offences, much less, for the charged offences. In the light of the charge under section 302 of I.P.C not being established, the charge under section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs &
S.Ts (P.O.A) Act also does not stand even though the victim belongs to S.C community and accused Nos.2 and 4 are non-S.C or S.T caste persons.
There is no material even for the charge under section 376 r/w 511 I.P.C.
23.For the above discussion, any amount of doubt that arises in the facts and circumstances of the case has to be bestowed in favour of the accused and therefore, the accused Nos.2 and 4 are entitled for the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C for the charged offences.
24.In the result, the accused Nos.2 and 4 are found not guilty for the offences under Sections 302 r/w 34, 376 r/w 511 of I.P.C. and section 3(2)(v) of S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act. Accordingly, they are acquitted under section 235(1) Cr.P.C. Their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of 6 months under Section 437-A Cr.P.C. No property is exhibited in this case.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by her, typed by her, corrected and pronounced by
me in the open court, on this the 11th day of April 2025.
Sd/-R.Sreelatha
Spl.Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act, 1989 cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
27 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
Form-c [Rule 67(3) of Criminal Rules of Practice]
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT WITNESSES. A. Prosecution
RANK NAME NATURE OF EVIDENCE
P.W.1 :Sri E.Nagaraju.Informant./Circumstantial witness. P.W.2 :Sri K.Sai Kumar.Informant/Circumstantial witness. P.W.3 :Sri E. Ramesh. Circumstantial witness. P.W.4 :Sri G.Venkata RamanaV.R.O – who recorded the extra judicial confession of the accused No.1. P.W.5 :Sri E.Mani Raju.Circumstantial witness. P.W.6 :Sri B.Ramesh Kumar.Photographer. P.W.7 :Sri M.Venkata Ramana.V.R.O – Mediator. P.W.8 :Sri V.Ramakrishna.V.R.O – Mediator. P.W.9 :Ms.A.Hemalatha.Medical Officer. P.W.10 :Sri A.B.V.S.R. Srinivas.R.D.O who issued caste certifcates. P.W.11 :Sri J.V.Ramana.S.I. - 1st Investigating Officer. P.W.12 :Sri L.Ankayya.Dy. S.P. - Investigating Officer. P.W.13 :Sri G.Deva Kumar.Dy. S.P. - Investigating Officer.
B. Defence Witnesses, if any :
RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE
Nil.
C. Court witnesses, if any :
RANKNAMENATURE OF EVIDENCE
Nil.
LIST OF PROSECUTION/DEFENCE/COURT EXHIBITS [Rule 67(3)] A. Prosecution : Sr.No. Exhibit Description . Number
1.Ex.P1Report given by P.W.1. 2Ex.P2Photos (2) with C.D. along with certificate under section 65-B of The Indian Evidence Act.
3.Ex.P3Scene observation report.
28 SC No.103/2017
Dated:11.04.2025
4.Ex.P4Inquest report.
5.Ex.P5R.F.S.L. Report.
6.Ex.P6Final Opinion.
7.Ex.P7Post Mortem report.
8.Ex.P8Certified copy of the extra judicial confession statement of accused No.1.
9.Ex.P9Certified copy of the report by P.W.4.
10.Ex.P10Caste certificate of the accused No.1.
11.Ex.P11Caste certificate of the accused No.2.
12.Ex.P12Caste certificate of the accused No.3.
13.Ex.P13Caste certificate of the accused No.4.
14.Ex.P14 : First Information Report vide Cr.No.27/2013.
15.Ex.P15 : Rough sketch of the scene of offence.
16.Ex.P16 : Proceedings dt.04.03.2014 for dropping action in Cr.No. 27/2013.
17.Ex.P17 : Altered F.I.R .
18.Ex.P18 : Proceedings of the Superintendent of police.
19.Ex.P19 : Caste certificate of P.W.1.
20.Ex.P20 : Caste certificate of the deceased.
B.Defence :
Sr.No. ExhibitDescription Number
1.Ex.D1 :Marked portion in the section 161 Cr.P.C. statement of P.W.1.
NIL.
C.Court Exhibits :
Sr.No. Exhibit NumberDescription
NIL.
D.Material Objects :
Sr.No. Material Object NumberDescription
Nil.
Sd/- R.Sreelatha
Spl.Judge for trial of cases under S.Cs & S.Ts (P.O.A) Act, 1989 cum- X Addl.District and Sessions Judge, Rajamahendravaram.
-// True Copy //-