LexKUSUMA ANKAMA RAO versus STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 10 S.C.R. 89 KUSUMA ANKAMA RAO v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Criminal Appeal No. 185 of 2005) ·JULY 7, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P.SATHASIVAM, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 - Last seen theory - Accused and deceased had illegal intimacy - Accused last seen with A B the deceased - Dead body of deceased found next day - Ac- c cused made extra-judicial confession before Village Admin- istrative Officer - Circumstantial evidence point guilt towards accused - No infirmity in conviction ordered by Courts below. Evidence Act, 1872 : Extra judicial confession - Eviden- tiary value of D Prosecution case was that the appellant-accused had illegal intimacy with the deceased. On the fateful day, the accused met PW-1, son of the deceased and asked him to bring bottle of liquor and a beedi packet. PW-1 brought the said items. Thereafter the accused asked the E whereabouts of the deceased. PW-1 went with the ac- cused to meet deceased. The deceased met accused and PW-1 and they went towards fields. The accused then asked, PW-1 not to follow them and to stop there. PW-1 waited for them for sometime and thereafter returned to F the hotel where he was working. Next morning he real- ized that his mother had not returned home. In the mean- while, they heard the people saying that a dead body was found in a field. PW-1 and 2 saw the dead body of the deceased. G The trial court convicted the accused under s.302 IPC. High Court dismissed the appeal holding that evi- . dence of PWs 1 and 2 to the effect that the accused and 89 H A B c D E F G 90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 10 S.C.R. deceased were last seen, together, the extra judicial con- fession made before the Village Administrative Officer and evidence clearly established the guilt of the accused. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. Where a case rests squarely on circum- stantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. The circum- stances from which an inference as to the guilt of the ac- cused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circum- stances. [Para 5] [96-D,E & F] Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977) SC 1063; Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad AIR (1956) SC 316; Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka AIR (1983) SC 446; State of UP v. Sukhbasi and Ors. AIR (1985) SC 1224; Ba/winder Singh v. State of Punjab AIR (1987) SC 350; Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of MP AIR (1989) SC 1890; Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR (1954) SC 621; C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A. P (1996) 10 SCC 193 ; Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P and Ors. AIR (1990) SC 79; State of UP v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1992) Crl.LJ 1104 - relied on. State of Haryana v. Ved Prakash AIR (1994) SC 468; Kai/ash Potlia v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR (1996) SC 66 - ..referred to. 2.1. Confessions may be divided into two classes i.e. judicial and extra-judicial. Judicial confessions are those which are made before a Magistrate or a court in the course of judicial proceedings. Extra-judicial confessions H are those which are made by the party elsewhere than ·I. r t ...., KUSUMA ANKAMA RAO v. STATE OF AN DH RA 91 PRADESH '( before a Magistrate or court. Extra-judicial confessions A are generally those that are made by a party to or before -.I a private individual which includes even a judicial officer in his private capacity. It also includes a Magistrate who is not especially empowered to record confessions un- der s.164 Cr.P.C. or a Magistrate so empowered but re- B ceiving the confession at a stage when s.164 does not apply. As the section enacts, a confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in criminal proceedings, if the making of the confession appears to the court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, (1) c having reference to the charge against the accused per- son, (2) proceeding from a person in authority, and (3) sufficient, in the opinion of the court to give the accused person grounds which would appear to him reasonable ,,, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advan- D tage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings agains
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.