REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.315-316 OF 2002

State of Andhra Pradesh … Appellant

Versus

S. Swarnalatha & Ors. … Respondents

J U D G M E N T S

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. The  State  of  Andhra  Pradesh  is  before  us  aggrieved  by  and  

dissatisfied  with  a  judgment  and  order  dated  2.8.2001  whereby  and  

whereunder  a  judgment  of  acquittal  was  recorded  upon  setting  aside  a  

judgment  of  conviction  and  sentence  dated  19.3.2001  passed  by  the  

Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case No.331 of 1998.

2. Respondents herein were accused of entering into a conspiracy with  

each other  to  commit  murder  of  one Bal  Reddy and his  wife  Kalavathi.

They were in-laws of the accused No.1.  Murder of Bal Reddy and his wife  

Kalavathi  were  committed  at  about  2.30  pm  on  3.12.1997.   Allegedly  

accused No.1 (the daughter-in-law of the deceased), with a view to cause  

disappearance of the evidence also give a false information with an intention  

to save the offenders from legal punishment.   

Indisputably,  there is no eye-witness to the occurrence.   The entire  

prosecution case is based on circumstantial  evidence.  In proving its case  

against the respondents, the prosecution mainly relied upon the evidence of  

PW3 (the driver of a taxi) and PW6 (son-in-law of the deceased).   

The First Information Report was lodged by one G. Damodar Reddy  

(son of the deceased and husband of the accused No.1).  According to him,  

on the aforementioned day and time, five persons had come to his house.  

They sat with his father in the drawing room for about half an hour.  Later  

they wanted to have tea whereupon his father asked his wife to get five cups  

of  tea.   Tea was prepared by the accused No.  1.   After  taking tea,  they  

allegedly brought his father to the TV room and pressed the mouth of both  

of his parents.  Some of them tied the legs and hands as well as neck of his  

parents with clothes as a result whereof they died.  They asked his wife to  

hand over to them the keys of the almirah kept in the said room and on  

2

receipt thereof they ransacked the same.  They thereafter came to his room  

and  with  the  key  offered  by  his  wife,  another  almirah  was  opened  and  

ransacked.  The accused took away gold, Pustela thadu and Kammalu from  

his wife.  They also took gold Pustela Thadu from the neck of his mother.  

While going out, they tied the hands, legs and mouth of his wife also.  They  

had cut the telephone wire and bolted the TV room door and drawing room  

door from outside.  His wife lost her consciousness.  At about 5.00 pm, she  

regained consciousness and untied herself.  She called the tenant of a portion  

of  the  house  Tulasi  by  name  through  the  window  whereafter  the  latter  

informed him about the incident on phone whereupon he rushed back to his  

house.  According to his wife, the culprits were aged between 25 to 32 years.  

3. On  the  basis  of  said  statements,  a  first  information  report  was  

recorded.   Allegedly  on  or  about  4.1.1998,  the  accused  No.1  made  a  

confession before G. Sukender (PW6) when he allegedly had gone to the  

house of the deceased in absence of Damodar Reddy.  She is said to have  

told  him that  as  she  was  being  harassed  by  her  parents-in-law,  she  had  

complained thereabout to her uncle, the accused No.2.  She also informed  

that her uncle had asked her as to whether her parents-in-law were to be  

killed to which proposal she agreed and promised to inform them the date on  

which they can be killed.   

3

In terms of the said conspiracy, as information was sent to the accused  

No.2 by the accused No.1.   

PW6 was also told that accused No.2 had asked for some money to  

which she stated that  she would give gold ornaments to them.  Pursuant  

thereto five persons came in a car at about 2.30 pm on 3.12.1997.  They  

were served with tea and with the help of telephone wire, all the accused  

strangulated  Bal  Reddy  and  Kalavathi  as  also  by  putting  pillow  and  a  

blanket over the face.  50 tolas of gold was given to them.  She had also  

given her gold Pusthalatadu to accused No.2 on being asked.  During the  

course of the incident, they tied her also with a saree.

4. PW6 thereafter took accused No.1 to CCS, Hyderabad and handed her  

over to the Inspector of Police (PW14).  She was interrogated whereupon  

she led the police to a village commonly known as Arutla.  Her confessional  

statement was recorded in the presence of PW6, PW8 and PW10.  She had  

offered to show two houses of Accused No.2 and others; pursuant whereto  

the houses of Accused Nos.2 to 6 were raided.  They were arrested and were  

interrogated.  Allegedly pursuant to their disclosure, seizures of some stolen  

goods were effected.   

4

A test identification parade was conducted in respect of the accused  

Nos.2 to 4.

5. Javeed Hussain (PW3) is a taxi driver.  The taxi belonged to one M/s  

Bhavani  Travels,  Dilsukhnagar.   According  to  him,  five  persons  had  

engaged his  taxi  for  going to  ‘Yadagirigutta’.   They asked him to go to  

Balkampet first with a view to pick up one person.  He took his taxi to a  

house situated near a temple.  They entered the said house at about 2.15 pm  

asking him to wait for them at that place.  After about half an hour one of the  

said five persons came and offered him a cup of tea.  He identified him to be  

the accused No.4.  After half an hour all of them came out of the house and  

asked  him  to  drop  them  at  Ring  Road,  Dilsukhnagar,  stating  that  they  

decided to drop the idea of going to Yadagirigutta.  For hiring the said taxi, a  

sum of Rs.500/- was given to him and as they did not go to their destination,  

they were entitled to some refund.  The taxi was said to have been booked  

by one Rajasekhar Reddy.  He was neither arrested nor examined by the  

Investigating officer.

6. The learned Trial Judge held the respondents guilty of commission of  

the  offences  wherewith  they  were  charged  on the  basis  of  the  following  

purported circumstantial evidence:

5

“1) Both the deceased died homicidal death.

2) The two deceased, A-1 and Damodar Reddy  were residing in the same house.

3) A-2 to A-6 engaged the taxi of PW3.

4) PW3, who took A-2 to A-6, saw the accused  entering  into  the  house  and  he  waited  for  half an hour.

5) After  committing  the  offence,  the  gold  ornaments  from  the  house  were  found  missing.

6) A-2  to  A-6  engaged  the  taxi  to  go  to  Yadagirigutta  but  they  got  down from the  taxi at the Ring Road, Dilsukhnagar.

7) Extra  judicial  confession  made  by  A-1  before PW6 and PW6 produced a-1 before  PW14.

8) In pursuance of the confessional statement,  A-1 took the police and panch witnesses to  the houses of A-2 to A-6.

9) A-2 to A-6 alleged to have discovered the  gold ornaments from the possession of A-2  to A-6.

10) The  accused  did  not  claim  the  gold  ornaments.

11) A-2  to  A-4  alleged  to  have  identified  by  PW3 in the test identification parade.

12) A-4  alleged  to  have  pledged  M.O.14  with  the State Bank of Hyderabad.

13) The  conduct  of  A-1  immediately  after  the  incident.”

6

7. Circumstance  No.1  is  admitted.   As  regards  circumstance  No.2,  

however, there is no evidence that accused No.1 was present in her house at  

the relevant time.  Circumstances Nos.3 to 6 are said to have been proved by  

PW3.

One  Rajasekhar  Reddy,  as  noticed  heretobefore,  engaged  the  taxi  

from  Jaya  Durga  Bhawani  Travels.   The  Investigating  Officer  did  not  

examine him.  He also did not visit the office of the said travel agent.   

In his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure  

PW3 had stated that three persons had gone to Durga Bhawani Travels to  

engage a taxi but in his deposition before the Court, he stated that all the six  

persons had met the owner thereof.  He although did not know the names of  

accused Nos.2 to 6, according to him one Rami Reddy, Prabhakar Reddy  

and Ayub came to hire the taxi.  No attempt was made by the Investigating  

Officer also to examine one ‘Murthy’ who is said to be the proprietor of  

Durga Bhavani Travel Agency.

PW3 in  his  statement  under  Section  164  mentioned  the  names  of  

Accused Nos.2 and 3 only as the persons who had gone to hire the taxi.  

However,  in his deposition before the court,  he took the name of all  the  

accused having engaged the taxi.

7

PW3  was  not  taken  by  the  investigating  officer  to  the  house  in  

question.  He, therefore, did not identify the house where the offence has  

taken place.

8. The purported test identification parade, wherein PW3 is alleged to  

have  participated  insofar  as  the  accused  Nos.  2  to  4,  was  conducted  on  

31.1.1998.  No explanation has been offered as to why it could not be held  

earlier as all the accused were in custody.   

9. So far as the extra judicial confessions purported to have been made  

by the accused are concerned, we may notice that accused No.1 has retracted  

therefrom.   

We do not find any reason as to why such extra judicial confession  

should be made before the son-in-law of the deceased,  particularly when  

PW6 has admitted in no uncertain terms that the family of the deceased was  

not in cordial terms with him.  PW6 admitted that prior to the making of  

confession to him, accused No.1 never talked to him.  Why she, instead of  

her husband, would confide in PW 6, is beyond all comprehension.  In the  

aforementioned  situation,  the  extra  judicial  confession  purported  to  have  

been made by the accused Nos. 1 to PW6 becomes doubtful.  Extra-judicial  

confession as is well known is a weak piece of evidence, although in given  

8

situations  reliance  thereupon can be  placed.   [See  State  of  U.P. v.  M.K.  

Anthony (1985) SCC 505 and State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram [(2006) 12  

SCC 254]

10. Furthermore,  PW6  allegedly  took  A1  to  the  police  station.   The  

remand  report  shows  that  the  accused  No.1  was  remanded  to  judicial  

custody.  When she was taken to police custody is not known.  The records  

of the case also do not disclose that any confession was made by accused  

No.1 before PW6.  According to the Investigating Officer, accused No.1 is  

said to have made confession before her husband.  Name of PW6 did not  

occur in the case diary.   

Alleged confessional statements made by Accused Nos.2 to 6 were  

treated as circumstances No.5, 8, 9, 10 and 12.  PW3 admits that Accused  

Nos. 2 to 6 were brought to Durga Bhavani Travels on 14.12.1997.  Why  

they were arrested on 4-5, January, 1998 has not been explained.   

11. We  may  also  place  on  record  that  the  learned  Trial  Judge  has  

acquitted the respondents from the charge of Section 392 of the Indian Penal  

Code.   

12. Some gold ornaments are said to have been pledged with the State  

Bank of Hyderabad by Accused No.4.  It has been brought on record that in  

9

the application for grant of loan, he is said to have signed in Telugu although  

ordinarily he signs in English.  His signature was also not found on the loan  

register.  Accused No.4 was said to have been introduced by one Dasarath  

whose account number was not mentioned in any document of the Bank.  

Accused  No.4  was  in  police  custody  from 14.12.1997.   It  is,  therefore,  

difficult to believe that he had applied for loan on 22.12.1997.

13. It stands accepted that 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 offence was conducted.  PW6 was admittedly not  

present at that time.  The statements of PW3 and PW6 were recorded under  

Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure much before their recording  

of their statements under section 161 thereof.

In  Ganesh Bhavan Patel  & Anr. v.  State of Maharashtra [(1978) 4  

SCC 371], this Court held :

“All the infirmities and flaws pointed out by the  trial Court assumed importance, when considered  in the light of the all-pervading circumstance that  there  was  inordinate  delay  in  recording  Ravji's  statement (on the basis of which the "F.I.R." was  registered)  and  further  delay  in  recording  the  statements  of  Welji,  Pramila  and Kuvarbai.  This  circumstance,  looming  large  in  the  background,  

10

inevitably  leads  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  prosecution story was conceived and constructed  after  a  good deal  of  deliberation  and  delay  in  a  shady  setting,  highly  redolent  of  doubt  and  suspicion.”

14. The  prosecution  furthermore  did  not  assign  any  motive  for  

commission of the offence.  According to PW1, the accused No.1 wanted to  

live  separately  to  which  the  deceased  did  not  agree.   However,  in  his  

deposition  before  the  Court,  PW6 stated  that  she  had  been  subjected  to  

harassment by the deceased.   

15. The trial Court itself has acquitted all the accused from the charges  

under Section 120B, 392 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, but so far as the  

charge of murder is concerned, it was held that the prosecution case must be  

held to have been proved by PW3 and PW6.   

We are of the opinion that the said findings are not correct.

We have found hereinbefore that PW3 and PW6 are not trustworthy,  

and, thus, the impugned judgment cannot be interfered with.   

There is another aspect of the matter which also cannot be lost sight  

of.  The High Court has recorded a judgment of acquittal.  The judgment of  

the High Court is a well reasoned one.  The view taken by the High Court is  

11

a plausible one.  It is now well known that if two views are possible, this  

Court  would not  interfere  with a judgment of acquittal  in exercise  of  its  

jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

In State of Punjab vs. Sohan Singh [(2009) 8 SCALE 260], this Court  

held:

“The view taken by the High Court, therefore, in  our opinion, was a plausible view.  It is now well  settled that  if  two views are possible,  this  court,  ordinarily,  in  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  under  Article 136 of the Constitution of India, would not  interfere with the judgment of the High Court.  {  See John K. John v.  Tom Varghese, [ (2007) 12  SCC 714]  and State of Punjab  v.  Gurnam Kaur  and others, [ 2009 (4) SCALE 343 ] }.”

16. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.

.……………………….J. [S.B. Sinha]

……………………..…J.     [R.M. Lodha]

New Delhi; August 4, 2009

12