Extra-Judicial Confession Before Stranger Highly Improbable, Can't Sustain Conviction Without Corroboration: AP High Court

The Andhra Pradesh High Court has acquitted a couple convicted of murdering a minor girl, holding that the prosecution had failed to establish their involvement in the crime.

In doing so, the Court found that the alleged confession before a person with whom the couple had no prior acquaintance, without any explanation for choosing him, raised serious doubts about the prosecution's case. The extra-judicial confession was the only material connecting the couple to the offence.

While setting aside the convictions, the Court acquitted the accused couple of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It also acquitted the uncle of the charge under Section 376 IPC.

Section 302 prescribes punishment for murder, Section 201 penalises causing the disappearance of evidence of an offence, Section 34 deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of their common intention, and Section 376 prescribes punishment for rape.

A Division Bench of Justice K. Suresh Reddy and Justice Sumathi Jagadam observed:

“In the ordinary course of human conduct, it is highly improbable that the accused would voluntarily approach a stranger and confess to the commission of a serious offence. In such circumstances, the alleged extra-judicial confession cannot be made basis for recording a conviction.

Having carefully analyzed the evidence of P.W.5, we have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that no reliance can be placed on the so-called belated extra-judicial confession projected by the prosecution through him. As already pointed out, P.W.5 has not stated any reason as to why both the accused chose him to confess to the commission of the offence, particularly when he admittedly had no prior acquaintance with either of them. Though an extra-judicial confession, if found to be voluntary, truthful and trustworthy and corroborated by other reliable circumstances, can form the basis for conviction. The Court must examine the surrounding circumstances in which such confession is alleged to have been made. In the present case, there is no such corroborative material forthcoming on record. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to establish the alleged extra-judicial confession and no reliance can be placed on the same.”

The prosecution's case was that the deceased, who was the couple's niece, had been orphaned at the age of three and was raised by them. The uncle allegedly sexually assaulted her over a period of time. When the aunt discovered that the girl was pregnant, she allegedly made her husband tie a yellow thread around the girl's neck and performed their marriage.

According to the prosecution, the girl thereafter lived with her uncle as his wife. The aunt allegedly became resentful and decided to eliminate her. On the evening of May 15, 2009, the couple allegedly caught hold of the girl, pushed her down and hit her head against the floor. The aunt then pressed a pillow over her face while the uncle held her hands and legs, causing her death.

At the time of the incident, the deceased was aged about 17 years.

The prosecution further alleged that the couple removed and concealed the yellow thread, transported the body in an autorickshaw and threw it into Kondaveeti Vagu. The pillow was also allegedly discarded in bushes near the vagu.

The investigation initially proceeded on two separate complaints. On May 16, 2009, the Village Revenue Officer in-charge of Undavalli noticed a dead body floating in Kondaveeti Vagu and informed the police. Based on his report, the police registered a case under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which deals with police inquiries and inquests into certain unnatural or suspicious deaths. An inquest was conducted, followed by a post-mortem examination, which recorded the cause of death as asphyxia due to smothering associated with a head injury.

Meanwhile, on May 17, 2009, the aunt lodged a missing-person complaint, stating that the girl had left with an unknown person on a motorcycle on the evening of May 15. The police registered a separate case under the head 'Girl Missing'.

The investigation into the death was subsequently transferred to Vijayawada Police Station. On June 20, 2009, the investigating officer received the case records and altered the case to one under Section 302 IPC.

The prosecution's case against the couple emerged on June 23, 2009. It alleged that both accused approached the Village Revenue Officer of Gollapudi at his office and confessed to the commission of the offence. The officer recorded their statements and produced them before the investigating officer.

Thereafter, the investigating officer recorded their confessional statements in the presence of other witnesses and effected recoveries pursuant to the alleged disclosures. These included a pillow recovered from bushes near Kondaveeti Vagu and an autorickshaw seized from its owner. Following the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the couple.

Upon trial, the Sessions Court convicted the aunt and uncle under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and seven years' rigorous imprisonment, respectively. The uncle was also convicted under Section 376 IPC and sentenced to ten years' rigorous imprisonment. The substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently.

Challenging the convictions and sentences, the couple approached the High Court. They contended that there was no legally admissible evidence establishing their involvement. They submitted that the material witnesses had turned hostile and that the prosecution's case rested solely on the alleged extra-judicial confession.

Opposing the appeal, the State argued that the Village Revenue Officer of Gollapudi had no reason to falsely implicate the couple and that an extra-judicial confession could form the basis of conviction if found to be voluntary and reliable.

On examining the evidence, the Bench noted that the neighbours of the accused, who were examined as witnesses, had not supported the prosecution. The autorickshaw owner had also not supported the allegation that the body was transported in his vehicle.

The Bench further noted that there had been no progress in the investigation until June 23, 2009, when the Village Revenue Officer of Gollapudi produced the couple before the investigating officer. Until then, no material had emerged to establish how the deceased had met with a homicidal death. The aunt's missing-person complaint had also not led to any progress in the investigation.

The Court also rejected the State's contention that the absence of any motive for the Village Revenue Officer to falsely implicate the couple was sufficient to establish the reliability of the prosecution's case.

Finding that the prosecution had failed to establish the alleged confession and that no independent material connected the accused to the offence, the Bench held that the conviction could not be sustained.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the aunt and uncle of the respective charges.

It directed that any fine paid be refunded and that they be set at liberty forthwith, if they were not required in any other case.

Counsel for the Appellants: Sri D. Kodandarami Reddy

Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Marri Venkata Ramana, Additional Public Prosecutor