- (1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court upholding the appellant's conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the 'IPC') for committing murder of one Gottapu Adilakshmi (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') by strangulating her with a towel on 22.2.2001. Learned VI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Machilipatnam had found the accused guilty and convicted and sentenced him to imprisonment for life and fine.
(2.) Prosecution case as unfolded during trial is as follows : Kusuma Ankama Rao (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') was a resident of Pedaveedhi of Gudivada Town. He was a fruit vendor. Sankara Rao (PW-1) and Rama Swamy (PW-2) are the son and husband of the deceased respectively. The deceased stayed with her family in the house of M. Simhachalam (PW-3) in Padamata Veedhi at Gudivada. Accused was having illegal intimacy with the deceased. On 22.2.2001 at about 6.30 p.m., the accused met PW-1 (son of the deceased) and asked him to get a quarter bottle of liquor and a beedi packet and paid Rs. 50/- for the purpose. Accordingly, PW-1 brought the said items. Thereafter, the accused asked the whereabouts of the deceased. PW-1 took the accused to Gopalakrishna (A.C.) theatre, where the deceased was working as a labourer on that day. On their way to the theatre, they found the deceased and some others coming in the opposite direction. At that point of time, the accused talked with the deceased; and the accused, deceased and PW-1 went to the bypass road leading to Eluru and thereafter they further went to the black gram field of one N. Narasimha Rao. At that point of time the accused asked PW-1 not to follow them and to stop there. Accordingly, PW-1 waited there for half an hour or so and as the deceased and accused did not return, he returned to the hotel where he was working. Thereafter, he went to the house late in the night. In the morning when he found that his mother had not returned home, he stated the above facts to his father. In the meanwhile, they heard the people saying that there was a dead body in the field of N. Narasimha Rao. Then PWs 1 and 2 went there and saw the dead body of the deceased and PW-2 asked PW-1 to give complaint to the police. Accordingly, PW-1 went to Town Police, Gudivada and gave Ex.P-1 report. On the basis of the said report, FIR was registered by PW-11. The Investigating Officer (PW-12) on receipt of the FIR went to the place of offence and conducted Panchanama of scene of offence and thereafter held inquest over the dead body of the deceased. He also examined the witnesses and seized the towel and other material objects. In the meanwhile, the accused made an extra-judicial confession before PW-6, the Village Administrative Officer to the effect that he had committed murder of the deceased by strangulation. Immediately, thereafter PW-6 recorded the statement of the accused duly attested the same by PW-8, the village servant. He took the accused to the Police Station along with the report. The C.I. of police examined Village Administrative Officer. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the learned Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gudivada, who registered the same as P.R.C. No.30 of 2001. Since the offence punishable under Section 302, IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, he committed the same to the Court of Session, Machilipatnam, who registered the case as S. C. No. 211 of 2001. Thereafter, the case was made over to the learned VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, Machilipatnam for trial and disposal in accordance with law. In order to establish its version, prosecution examined 12 witnesses and marked as Exhs. P-1 to P-14 documents and M.Os. 1 to 19 were also marked. The trial Court after considering the evidence on record found the accused guilty and sentenced him as afore-stated. The conviction was challenged before the High Court. The stand before the High Court was that the prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence and the circumstances highlighted do not establish the guilt of the accused. The State on the other hand referred to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 and the extra- judicial confession made before Village Administrative Officer (PW-6) to the effect that accused and the deceased were last seen together, and the evidence clearly established the guilt of the accused. The High Court accepted the stand of the State and dismissed the appeal.
(3.) In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the last seen concept is not applicable to the present case. The so-called extra-judicial confession was before a stranger. There is no reason as to why the accused would make confession before a stranger. Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in State of Haryana v. Ved Prakash (AIR 1994 SC 468) and Kailash Potlia v. State of Andhra Pradesh (AIR 1996 SC 66).;