http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  671 of 2003

PETITIONER: Kojja Sreenu                                     

RESPONDENT: State of A.P.    

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 18/12/2003

BENCH: N.Santosh Hegde & B.P.Singh                                              

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

SANTOSH HEGDE,J.

       The appellant and two others were charged for an offence  punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC as also  for an offence punishable under section 201 read with section  34 before the Additional Sessions Judge, Khammam, who by  his judgment dated 15.10.1998 convicted all the accused  persons for offences punishable under section 302 read with  section 34 and section 201 and sentenced them to undergo  imprisonment for life; for the office under section 201 IPC, no  separate sentence was awarded by him. In appeals filed against  the said judgment, the High Court of Judicature Andhra  Pradesh at Hyderabad, so far as the appeal of  Bunadri Veeraiah  A-2 is concerned, it allowed the same and acquitted him of the  charges framed against him. So far as the appeal of Moram  Sreenu A-3 is concerned, the High Court partly allowed the said  appeal and while acquitting him of the charge under section 302  IPC, convicted him of the offence under section 201 IPC and  sentenced him to the period already undergone, while the High  Court dismissed the appeal of the appellant herein, confirming  the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial court, hence,  the said accused is before us in this appeal.         The prosecution case, stated briefly, is that all the 3  accused persons and the deceased, Challa Venkanna @  Naddodu were involved in property offences. While the said  deceased was in custody for one such offence, between the  years 1993 and 1995, the appellant developed illicit intimacy  with the wife of the deceased and he eloped with her. On his  being released from custody, the deceased having come to  know of this relationship, he got his wife to return to him and  also allegedly warned the appellant against the said  relationship. It is because of this reason there was ill will  between the two of them. Prosecution states that the appellant  on 29.3.1995, when the deceased and the accused persons had  gone to a toddy shop to consume toddy and were returning  back, the appellant had an altercation with the deceased in the  presence of other accused persons. This was noticed by Kodi  Lingaiah, PW-5. It was the further case of the prosecution that  from 29th to 31st March, 1995 the deceased was not seen. The  prosecution alleges that on 31.3.1995, the appellant went to  PW-1 who was working as an attender in the Collectorate and  made a confession to him that he and his friend had killed the  deceased on 29.3.1995 and thrown his body in a pond near the  river Munneru. Having got this information, the brother of the  deceased went to the Khammam Rural Police Station and filed  a complaint against the accused persons which was registered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

as Crime No.60 of 1995 with that Police Station and an offence  under sections 302 and 201 read with section 34 IPC was  registered against the accused persons. The trial court accepted  the evidence of PW-5 to whom the appellant allegedly made an  extra-judicial confession. It also took note of the fact that PW-2  had seen the appellant quarrelling with the deceased on  29.3.1995 and accepting the motive as projected by the  prosecution found all the accused guilty, as stated above.         The High Court in appeal, accepted the evidence of PW- 5 as to the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the  appellant and the evidence of PW-2 in regard to the quarrel that  took place on 29.3.1995. It also accepted the prosecution case  in regard to the motive as suggested by the prosecution but in  the absence of any direct evidence or other material to establish  the actual role played by A-2, the High Court found him not  guilty of the offence and acquitted him. While in regard to A-3  the High Court came to the conclusion that there was no  material adduced by the prosecution as to his role in the murder  of the deceased but placing reliance on his statement made  under section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he admitted the fact that he  had assisted the appellant in disposing of the body convicted  him only for that offence while acquitting him of the charge of  murder.         So far as the appellant is concerned, the High Court  accepted the prosecution case in toto and confirmed the  conviction imposed on him by the trial court. Ms. C K  Sucharita, learned counsel appearing for the appellant  contended that both the courts below seriously erred in placing  reliance on the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the  appellant to PW-5. She contended that the evidence of PW-5 is  wholly artificial and his conduct after hearing the confession,  shows that if really such a confession had been made to him, he  would have first gone to the Police Station rather than going in  search of the brother of the deceased. She also contended that  the evidence of PW-2 does not help the prosecution in proving  the guilt as against this appellant. She submitted that the courts  below ought not to have relied upon the statement of A-3 made  under section 313 Cr.P.C. to hold the appellant guilty. Per  contra, Mr. G. Prabhakar, learned counsel representing the  State, contended that though there are no eye witnesses to the  actual killing of the deceased, it is clear from the evidence led  by the prosecution that the appellant was considering the  deceased as a hurdle in the way of his affair with the latter’s  wife. He also contended that there is sufficient material through  the evidence of PW-2 to prove the fact that there was a quarrel  between the appellant and the deceased on the day deceased  died. He also contend that the appellant had sufficient motive to  commit the murder of the deceased. He further contended that  PW-5 is an independent witness who has no axe to grind  against the appellant and the deceased used to respect him as an  elder brother. In such a situation there is nothing suspicious if  the appellant had gone to him and made a confessional  statement. He rebutted the argument of the learned counsel for  the appellant as to PW-5 not going to the Police Station by  saying that it is but natural for a witness like PW-5 after hearing  the confession to first bring to the notice of the family of the  deceased the factum of his death before any further steps could  be taken. Learned counsel contended that from the evidence of  PW-2 it is clear that immediately before the murder was  committed, the appellant had an altercation with the deceased.  This coupled with the statement of A-3 made before the court  clearly shows that it is the appellant who committed the murder.         As noted above, it is seen that the prosecution relies on  the evidence of PWs.2, 5 and the statement of A-3 to prove its  charge of murder against the appellant. If we analyse this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

evidence independently then we gather the impression that it is  unsafe to base a conviction of the appellant on the above  material.         PW-5 is a resident of the same locality where the  deceased was also residing. This witness is an attender in the  District Collectorate at Khammam. He states that about 3 years  before his evidence, one morning A-1 came to him and made an  extra-judicial confession to him that two days before he along  with two other accused persons had committed the murder of  the deceased and had thrown his body in a pond and he  allegedly requested this witness to help him for which this  witness told him to go and surrender to the Police. Having  heard the statement of A-1, this witness allegedly proceeded to  his office marked his attendance and at about 11-11.30 a.m. left  the office without informing anyone to inform PW-1 brother of  the deceased about his death. If we analyse his evidence, we  note that this witness seems to have taken the information of a  murder rather indifferently. He is a government servant. A-1 if  known to him well, PW-5 would have known that he is a person  involved in property crime and any dealing with such person  that too pertaining to murder would put this witness in a  difficult position. In spite of the same and even though the  police station was on the way to his office, this witness does not  bother to inform the police, on the contrary, considers it so  important as to leave his office without permission to go to PW- 1’s house to inform him of his brother’s death. This witness did  not inform anybody in his office also about the murder  committed in a town like Khammam. We find some amount of  artificiality in the evidence of this witness. A-1 did not have  any special reason to make a confession to this witness which is  clear from the evidence, PW-5 himself when he says that he did  not know why A-1 made a confession to him. Most of all what  makes his evidence doubtful is his not informing the police  about the confession even after he told PW-1 about it. In this  background the statement allegedly made by A-1 being an extra  judicial confession, we think it not safe to rely on the same.         The courts below have then relied on the evidence of  PW-2 who stated that on the date of incident he along with  some others saw A-1 quarreling with the deceased. From the  evidence of this witness, it becomes doubtful whether he knew  the accused persons at all because he stated in his evidence that  he saw the accused only on the date of incident. He was unable  to give the particulars of the dress worn by them. In this  background, we think his evidence also cannot be relied on.         That leaves only the statement of A-3, who in his  statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., stated that he helped the  appellant in throwing the body in the pond. This statement  being in the nature of a confession involving a co-accused, we  do not think it safe to place reliance on the same in the absence  of any corroboration whatsoever..           For the said reasons, this appeal succeeds, the judgments  of the courts below are set aside. The appellant shall be set at  liberty forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

The appeal is allowed.