STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus KANDA GOPALUDU

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 643 · Decided: 27-09-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

STA TE OF ANDHRA PRADESH 
A 
v. 
KANDA GOPALUDU 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2005 
[H.K. SEMA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, J860-Section 302-Conviction by Trial Court on basis 
of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by accused before PWs. J to 3 as 
also the evidence of the JO and the doctor-But acquittal by High Court- C 
On appeal, Held: Reasoning of High Court that the accused made confession 
before strangers is contrary to the evidence, hence perverse-Testimony of 
Pws. J, 2 and 3 found consistent-Evidence of the JO well corroborated in 
material particulars by the evidence of the Doctor-Plea of the accused that 
deceased committed suicide completely belied by medical evidence, hence 
can be taken as an additional link in the chain of circumstances against the D 
accused-Additional incriminating material in form of seizure of shirt stained 
with blood-Trial Court rightly ordered conviction. 
Evidence Act, 1872: 
Extra-judicial confession-Admissibility of-Held, is admissible if it E 
inspired confidence and was made voluntarily. 
Examination of witness-Delay in-Effect of-Held: Prosecution witness 
being examined almost four years after the incident, could not be expected 
to depose with mathematical precision-Human memories are apt to blur 
with passage of time. 
F 
The Trial Court convicted Respondent under Section 302 IPC based 
upon the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by him before PWs. I, 2 
and 3. The Trial Court also relied upon the evidence of PW9, the Investigating 
Officer corroborated by the evidence of PWS, the Doctor. The High Court G 
however recorded acquittal on the ground that PW.I and PW. 2 were strangers 
and there was no reason for the respondent to make the extra-judicial 
confession before PWs-1, 2 and 3. The High Court held the statements of 
PWs.1 and 2 to be full of contradiction and artificial, though it did not assign 
any reason with regard thereto. Hence the present appeal by the State. 
M3 
H 
644 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Extra-judicial confession is admissible if it inspired 
confidence and made voluntarily. The High Court's reasoning that the accused 
has made a confession statement before a stranger is totally perverse. The 
evidence on record shows that PWI is Sarpanch of the village while PW.2 
B and ~W.3 are ward members of the village gram panchayat. [646-A-B] 
c 
1.2. PW.1, 2 and 3 were subjected to lengthy cross-examination. Not 
even a suggestion was put to the witnesses that the confession was tainted 
and non-voluntary or that it was obtained by coercion, inducement or promise 
of favour. [646-D] 
Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan, [2001] 2 SCC 205, referred to. 
1.3. The testimony of Pws.], 2 and 3 are consistent. Though the 
respondent pointed out that iu the evidence of PWs I and 2 there is 
contradiction that the accused did not state before them that he came seeking 
D protection from them, but this discrepancy cannot be termed as a contradiction 
which would be fatal to the prosecution case. Every discrepancy in the 
statement of .witness cannot be treated as fatal to prosecution case. The 
discrepancy which is not fatal to the prosecution does not create any infirmity. 
PW.2 was examined almost four years after the incident. Human memories 
E 
are apt to blur with the passage of time. After lapse of almost four years, it 
cannot be expected that a witness can depose with mathematical precision. 
[649-C-D] 
2. The dead body of the deceased was found floating in the well waters. 
The statement of the Investigating Officer about the injuries found on the 
body of the deceased at the time of preparing the inquest report Ex.P.5 is found 
F well corroborated in material particular by the evidence of the Doctor, PW.5. 
The Doctor opined that the deceased had apparently died of asphyxia due to 
throttling with the duration of about 18 to 20 hours prior to the post-mortem 
examination. (649-E-F; 648-G] 
3. Apart from the unimpeached evidence against the accused, there is 
G yet another strong incriminating material apparent against the accused. In 
his statement under 313 Cr.P.C. the accused while denying the commission 
of any offence took the plea that the deceased has committed suicide. His 
specific plea that the deceased committed suicide as she had no issue is 
completely belied by the medical evidence of Doctor, PW.5 who categorically 
H ruled out the suicidal death. The accused has taken a fa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.