LexSTATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH versus S. SWARNALATHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2009] 12 S.C.R. 289 ' STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH A - v. S. SWARNALATHA & ORS. (Criminal Appeal Nos. 315-316 of 2002) AUGUST 4, 2009 B [S.B. SINHA AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] PENAL CODE, 1860: -cJ, s. 302 - Murder - A couple found murdered in their c house - Their daughter-in-law, her uncle and 4 others prosecuted on charges ulss 120-B, 392, 302 and 201 - Prosecution based on circumstantial evidence - Trial court acquitting accused of charges u/s 392, 201 and 120-B - Conviction uls 302 - Acquittal by High Court -- HELD: There D -t are discrepancies in evidence of prosecution witnesses - Extra-judicial confession becomes doubtful - There is no .. explanation for delay in recording statements of witnesses by police and holding test identification parade - There is no motive for the crime - Besides, the view of the High Court in E recording the acquittal is plausible one - Supreme Court would not interfere with a judgment of acquittal in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 161 and 164 - Evidence - Extra-judicial confession - Test identification parade - F Criminal Law - Absence of motive for crime - Constitution of India, 1951 - Article 136. The parents of PW-1 were found murdered in their house on 3.12.1997. PW- 1 lodged a complaint with the police stating that five persons came to his house, killed G his parents ransacked the house, tied his wife, took away some gold ornaments belonging to his mother and his wife (accused no. 1) and ran away. His wife stated to have untied herself when she regained consciousness and 289 H 290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R. A called her neighbour. She later made confession on 4.1.f998 to the son-in-law of the deceased (PW-6), who handed her over to police. She was stated to have confessed to PW-6 that she told her uncle (A-2) that she was being harassed by her in-laws and on her s information the accused came to the house. Since there was no eye witness, the trial court relying upon the circumstantial evidence acquitted the accused of the charges u/ss 392, 201 anid 120-8 IPC, but convicted and sentenced them u/s 302 IPC. On appeal by the accused, c the High Court acquitted all of them of the charge of s.302 IPC also. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeals. Dismissing the appE!als, the Court HELD: 1.1. An extra-judicial confession is a weak D piece of evidence, although in given situations reliance thereupon can be placedl. In the instant case, there is no reason as to why the extra.judicial confession should be made by A-1 before PW-El, the son-in-law of the deceased, particularly, when PW6 has admitted that the family of the E deceased was not in cordial terms with him. PW6 admitted that prior to the making of confession to him, A-1 never talked to him. In the circumstances, the extra - judicial confession purported to have been made by A-1 to PW6 becomes doubtful. The records of the case also F do not disclose any confession to have been made by A-1 before PW6. Name of PW6 did not occur in the case diary. Furthermore, \PW6 allegedly took A-1 to the police station. The remand report shows that she was remanded to judicial cll.lstody. When she was taken to G police custody is not known. Besides, the extra-judicial confessions stated to have been made by her have been retracted. The alleged confessional statements made by A-2 to A-6 were treated as circumstances No.5, 8, 9, 10 and 12. PW3 admits that A-2 to A-6 were taken to the travel H agency on 14.12.1997. Why they were arrested on 4-5 ,\. - +- STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S. 291 SWARNALATHA & ORS. ,.,. January, 1998 has not been explained. [Para 9 and 10) A [297-F-H; 298-A-C] State of UP. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) SCC 505 and State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254, referred to. 1.2. There are discrepancies in the statement of PW- B 3, the taxi driver who is said to have taken A-2 to A-6 on his taxi to the house of occurrence. PW3 in his statement --J .. u/s 164 Cr.P.C. mentioned the names of A-2 and A-3 only as the persons who had gone to hire the taxi. However, in his deposition before the court, he named all the c accused having engaged the taxi. The statements of PW3 and PW6 were recorded only on 31.1.1998. The Investigating Officer did not assign any reason as to why so much delay was caused in recording their statements. A panchnama in regard to the scene of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.