STATE OF A.P. versus E. SATYANARAYANA

Citation: [2009] 7 S.C.R. 206 · Decided: 30-04-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 7 S.C.R. 206 
A 
STATE OF A.P. 
" 
V. 
E. SATYANARAYANA 
Criminal Appeal No. 40 of 2004 
B 
APRIL 30, 2009 
(DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, D.K. JAIN AND DR. 
MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, JJ.) 
~ 
Penal Code, 1860: 
c 
S. 302 - Murder of wife and minor son - Extra judicial 
confession found reliable by the trial court-Accused convicted 
to life imprisonment - High Court directing acquittal - On 
appeal, Held: In the facts and circumstances of the case, 
;udgment of High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to 
D warrant inteJference - Extra judicial confession - Reliability 
of - Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 24, 25, 26. 
Appellant was charged with the murder of his wife 
and minor son. Trial court found him guilty of the offence 
punishable under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to 
E life imprisonment. On appeal, High Court directed his 
acquittal. Hence the appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. There are some relevant aspects which the 
F High Court has rightly taken note of. Firstly, the extra-
judicial confession is said to have been made at about 
8.00 a.m. The First Information Report was given at 11.30 
a.m. It has not been explained as to why there was delay 
in lodging the FIR by the Village Administrative Officer. 
G The evidence of PW.2 shows that police was in the house 
of the accused around 8.00 a.m. If that be so, the first thing 
PW.1 would have done was to report to the police about 
the extra-judicial confession. That apparently has not been 
done. PW.1 stated that after the extra judicial confession 
H 
206 
I 
STATE OF A.P. V. E. SAiYANARAYANA 
207 
was made, he asked two persons to keep a watch over A 
the accused and then'the police came and the accused 
was handed over to the police officials. This runs contrary 
to the evidence of PW.14 who has clearly admitted that 
the position was not so. [Para 8] [210-F-H; 211-A] 
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh 8 
AIR 1954 SC 322; Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1975 
SC 1320; Narayan Singh v. State of M.P AIR 1985 SC 1678; 
Kishore Chand v. State of H.P AIR 1990 SC 2140; Baldev Raj 
, v. State of Haryana AIR 1991 SC 37; Piara Singh v. State of 
Punjab Al R 1977 SC 227 4 and Madan Gopal Kakkad v. Naval C 
Dubey 1992 (3) SCC·204 - referred to. 
2. Another piece of material on which the trial Court 
had placed reliance related to the recovery of the blood 
stained sickle on the basis of the disclosure made by the 0 
accused, The High Court has noticed that the police was 
at the place of occurrence from 8.00 a.m. till 4.00 P·!ll· If 
that was so, no explanation has been offered as to why 
the blood stained sickle in the house of the accused was 
not noticed. The conclusions of the High Court leave no 
manner of doubt that the judgment of the High Court does E 
not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference. [Para 
9] [211-B-C] 
Case Law Reference 
AIR 1954 SC 322 
referred to 
Para 6 
'F 
AIR 1975 SC 1320 
referred to 
Para 6 · · 
AIR 1985 SC 1678 
referred to 
,Para 6 
AIR 1990 SC 2140 
referred to 
Para 6 
G 
AIR 1991 SC 37 
referred to 
Para 6 
AIR 1977 SC 2274 
referred to 
Para 6 
1992 (3) sec 204 
referred to 
Para 6 
H 
. 208 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 7 S.C.R. 
A 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
:> 
' 
No. 40 of 2004 
From the Judgement and Order dated 09.07.2003 of the 
Hon'ble High Court of AP. at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal 
No. 897 of 2000. 
8 
I. Venkatanarayana, D. Bharathi Reddy, Altaf Fatima, V. 
Prabhakar Rao, with him for the Appellant. 
Nikhil Goel (AC.) for the Respondent. 
c 
The Judgement of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of the Division 
Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court directing acquittal of 
D the respondent who faced trial for alleged commission of murder 
of his wife and minor son in the intervening night of 14/ 
15.11.1996. 
2. Learned Sessions Judge, Nizamabad, had found him 
guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian 
E Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced him to undergo 
imprisonment for life. 
3. The whole prosecution case rested on the alleged extra 
judicial confession purported to have been made by the 
F 
accused before the Village Administrative Officer (PW.1) around 
8.00 a.m. The First Information Report was given to the police 
at 11.30 a.m. on 15.11.1996. It Was indicated in the FIR that the 
accused had made a confession before Village Administrative 
Office
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.