LexDHANANJAYA REDDY ETC. versus STATE OF KARN AT AKA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
DHANANJAYA REDDY ETC. A ~ -1 " STATE OF KARN AT AKA MARCH 14, 2001 [K.T. THOMAS AND RP. SETHI, JJ.] B Crirninal l.a1v : /'ma/ Code, 1860-Sections 34 and 302-Murder ~f husband-IVife accused along ivith other co-accused-L~fe imprisonment aivarded by /iigh c ['ou11 lo all the accused-On appeal, lvife acquilled giving her !he benefit o.f doubt-Conviction of other accused upheld on basis of Ch1:u1nsfantial evi- denr:e. Ci: P.C.-Ss. 164, 281, 313 and 463. Unsigned cu1~ft:ssionul statemtnt of a co-accused-Admiss;bility of- D field, unsigned confessional staternenf inadmissible in evidence. According to the Prosecution, decca.Scd's \'Vife Al \Vas having extra- marital relations witft A2. A2 along with co-accused A3 and 4A murdered the deceased and the wife (Al) handed over her gold jewellery to the E ~ accused and played the role of a victim of armed rohhcry-cum-murder. Trial Court convicted Al and A2 under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced them to life imprisonment and .acquitted A3 and A4 by giving them the benefit or doubt. High Court dismissed the appeal of Al and A2 upholding their conviction and sentence and allowed Ute appeal of the State. It also held A3 and A4 guilty of offence under Section 302/34 l.P.C. and sentenced F them to life imprisonment. Hence this appeal. The Appellant-accused contended that the conviction and sentence was against Jaw and !'acts; that the circumstantial evidence were insuffi- cient to connect the accused with the commission of the crime; that impor- tant links in the chain of circumstances were missing; and that the confcs- G sional statement made by A4 was not signed by him and so it is not legally admissible in evidence. .. ..,. Disposing the appeals, the Court HELD : J. A 1 has heen convicted mainly on the ground of her heing H 399 400 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] 2 S.C.R. A last seen with the deceased and her involvement in the commission of the crime on the basis of the confessional statement made by A4. The circnm- t stance of, Al being last seen with the deceased, though proved, cannot lead t>- B c D E F G to the irresistible inference of her being guilty of the crime, because being legally wedded wife of the deceased, she was supposed to be with him in his house where the crime was committed. This circumstance can be used against her only if there is any other circumstantial e'idence linking her with the ghastly action committed in murdering the deceased. In the ab- sence of the confessional statement it could he inferred that she was also subjected to the crime of robbery and her husband was murdered. It cannot be totally excluded that A2, after realising that his concubine has started living with her husband, got enraged and resolved to finish her husband to facilitate his enjoying the extra-marital relations with Al. The prosecution itself was not sure about the involvement of Al in the commis· sion of the crime for which they· got herself medically examined to ascer· tain the possibility of any sexual offence having been committed upon her. It is unfortunate that the investigating agency did not even think it proper to allege the existence of a Lriminal conspiracy which, if proved against the other accused, would have proved the commission of offence of murder by Al also. [408-C-G] 2.1. The function of the Magistrate in recording confession under Section 164 Cr. P.C. is a very solemn act which he is obliged to perform by taking due care to ensure that all the reqnirements of the Section are folly satisfied. The Magistrate recording such a statement should not adopt a casual approach as appears to have been shown in this ca.-e. Besides ensuring that the confessional statement being made before him is volun- tary and without pressnre, the Magistrate must record the confession in the manner laid down by the Section. Omission to comply the mandatory provisions is likely to render the confessional statement inadmissible. The words "shall be signed by the person making the confession" are manda- tory in nature and the Magistrate recording the confession has no option. Mere failure to get tile signature of the persori making the confession may not be very material if the making of such statement is not disputed by the accused but in cases where the making of the statement itself is in contro- versy, the omission to get the signature is fatal. [409-H; 410-A-C] 2.2. Compliance of sub-section (4) of Section 16
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.