Holding

The confession under Section 164 of the CrPC is admissible, the recovered weapons are admissible, and the circumstantial evidence establishes the appellant’s guilt, so the conviction is upheld.

Summary

The appellant, Montri Sreenu, was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for murdering his mother‑in‑law, Batta Chandramma. The prosecution relied on the appellant’s confession before a magistrate, extra‑judicial confessions to witnesses, recovery of a stone and stick allegedly used as weapons, and medical evidence linking the injuries to such weapons. The appellant challenged the admissibility of the confession recorded under Section 164 of the 1973 Code of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the case was tried under the old Code in a scheduled area and that the weapon recovery was improper. The Supreme Court held that the confession under Section 164 was admissible despite procedural lapses, that the recovered weapons were relevant, and that the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the life sentence upheld.

Issues considered

Whether a confession recorded under Section 164 of the 1973 CrPC is admissible when the trial is conducted under the old CrPC in a scheduled area.
Whether the recovery of a weapon (stone) from an open place can be relied upon as evidence.
Whether extra‑judicial confessions made to private witnesses are admissible.
Whether the circumstantial evidence presented is sufficient to prove the murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Legislation cited

Subjects

murderconfessionSection 164 CrPCcircumstantial evidencescheduled areaCriminal ProcedureIPC Section 302extra‑judicial confessionweapon recovery

Judgment

[2008] 14 S.C.R. 498

A MONDRI SREENU J--
v.
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
OCTOBER 15, 2008
· (Criminal Appeal No. 1263 of 2005)
B
(S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, J.J.]
t--
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 - Accused convicted of causing death of his
c mother-in-law - Conviction and sentence of imprisonment for
life upheld by High Court - HELD: Apart from confession be-
fore Magistrate and I. 0., accused also made extra judicial
confession to the witness who caught and handed him over to
police - Accused never retracted the confessions - Weapons
D of crime were recovered at the instance of the accused - It is
not a case where courts below could have totally ignored re-
covery of said articles - Witnesses saw the accused at the rel-
evant time with the deceased near the place of occurrence -
Medical evidence corroborated the probable time of death
E when accused was seen near place of occurrence and that
injuries could have been caused by weapons recovered -
Strained relations between parties because of marital dishar-
many between accused and daughter of deceased not in dis-
pute - There is no merit in the appeal - Confession and Extra-
F ;udicial confessions - Circumstantial evidence - Accused last
seen with deceased - Recovery of weapons of crime. [para
\__
17-19, 24-27]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898:
ss. 164 and 342 - Applicability of in Scheduled Area of
G
Andhra Pradesh - HELD: Court can take judicial notice that
State of A. P did not extend to its Scheduled areas, the provi- 1.
sions of the new Cr.PC. -Accused was examined in terms of
s. 342 of the old Code - As there is no separation of Judicial

H 498
MONDRI SREENU v. STATE OF ANDHRA 499
PRADESH

--i and Executive Officers, accused was produced before Execu- A
tive Officer for recording his statement u/s 164 - As provisions
of old Code were applicable, non-compliance of provisions of
s. 164 of the 19 73 Code was not of much significance - A state-
ment made by accused u/s 164 is admissible in evidence -
Confession - Judicial Notice - Code of Criminal Procedure, B
1973 - s. 164. [para 20-21]
~ CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1263 of 2005
From the final Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2004 of c
the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad
in Criminal Appeal No. 944 of 2002
Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary for the Appellant.
Altaf Fathima and D. Bharathi Reddy for the Respondents.
D
The Judgment Order of the Court was delivered
~
1. Appellant is before us aggrieved by and dissatisfied
with the judgment and order dated 12 .10 .2004 passed by the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad, whereby and
whereunder the appeal preferred by him from a judgment and E
order dated 21.12.2001 passed by the learned Sessions Judge,
Khammam in S.C. No.143/2001 convicting the appellant herein
for commission of an offence punishable under Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo impris-
onment for life and also to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to F
___,(
suffer R.I. for one month, was dismissed.
2. The basic fact of the matter is not in dispute.
3. The deceased Batta Chandramma is the mother-in-law
of the appellant. Appellant married her third daughter Bhadrakali G
sometime in 1990. A daughter and a son were born to them. As
...
.,- appellant is said to have started harassing his wife by beating
and abusing her, she deserted him and went to her parents'
house at Chinthalagudem Village and started living with them.
Appellant, thereafter, married another woman. However, he H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

A came to Village Chinthalagudem where his parents-in-law were
residing, to live with them. But after 10 days he started harass-
ing his wife again. Batta Chandramma (the deceased)- mother-
in-law of th~ appellant allegedly used to quarre,I with him and
had asked him to leave the house.
B 4. On 19.10.1999, the deceased went to the agricultural
field belonging to the family and she did not return till evening.
On enquiry, one B.P. Veraiah informed the informant that he had I~
seen the appellant in the fields and also heard some cries. Pur-,
suant thereto, Pitchaiah, Chinna Veeraiah, Baria Ram Babu and
C Degala Veeraiah went to the fields in search of Chandramma.
They found her dead body lying in a pool of blood. Her sari was
also tied around her neck. Accusing the appellant as the per-
son responsible for her death, a first information report was
lodged. Appellant was arrested at about 8.30 P.M. on
D 22.10.1999. He admitted his guilt and confessed about the com-
mission of the offence. He also made a disclosure statement
pursuant whereto a stick and a stone, which were said to have
been used in the commission of the offence, were recovered.
The said articles were seized.
E 5. Appellant was produced before Shri R. Verra Reddy,
Mandal Magistrate, Dummugudem on 4.11.1999 and his con-
fessional statement was recorded.
6. Before the learned Sessions Judge, the prosecution
F examined 18 witnesses. We, however, need not deal with the
depositions of all the prosecution witnesses. Suffice it to point
out that PW-1 (Batta Pitchaiah) father-in-law of the appellant in
his deposition categorically supported the statements made in
the first information report before the S.H.O. of Bhadrachalam
G Police Station. PW-2 Bhadrakali, who is the wife of the appel-
lant, also supported the prosecution case. PW-3 Batta Pedda
Veeraiah and PW-4 Batta China_ Veeraiah, who were brothers
of PW-1 and had been working in the adjoining fields, deposed
that they had seen appellant and the deceased together. PW-3
categorically stated that whereas the deceased Chandramma
H
MONDRI SREENU v. STATE OF ANDHRA 501
PRADESH

was sitting on 'Mancha' in her paddy field, the appellant (ac- A
cused) was standing near it and Chandramma was shouting at
appellant. Thinking that the same was a common affair between
them, he went to his work. The evidence of PW-4 is also to the
same effect.
7. PW-5 Degala Veeraiah is a resident of Chinthalagudem B
Village. He in his deposition categorically stated that on the date
of incident, while he was grazing his bulls at the pastures at
about 1.00 P.M., he found the appellant going towards the field
of PW-1. He furthermore found the appellant coming back in a
hurry at about 4.00 P.M .. He called him (appellant) but he did c
not give any reply to his call and went away. On the same night
he learnt that Chandramma was found dead in the fields.
8. PW-6 Baria Raghavulu who is also a resident of
Chinthalagudem Village, a mason by occupation, in his evidence
D
stated that 3 days after the death of Chandramma, he saw the
accused while he was talking to his brother at Bhupathiraopeta
~ Colony. When the accused was questioned, he confessed be-
fore him that he killed his mother-in-law as she had not been
, allowing him to live with his wife (PW-2). Appellant was caught
by the said witness and then handed over to the S.H.O., E
Bhadrachalam Police Station.
9. PW-7 K. Rajamma is said to be the second wife of the
appellant. She came to learn about the first marriage of the
appellant one year after her marriage with him. Thereafter, she F
left his company. According to her also, appellant used to beat
her after consuming alcohol.
10. One D. Motiya, who examined himself as PW-8, was
residing in the house adjacent to the house of the deceased.
He also testified that the appellant used to harass his wife PW- G
2 whereupon a Panchayat meeting was convened and the ap-
-t pellant was chastised. He also deposed that after the meeting
of the Panchayat, appellant came to his in-laws' place and
started living there. He also proved that Chandramma used to
harass and warn him to go out of the said house but he contin- H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
'-

A ued to live there. Almost to the same effect is the evidence of
PW-9. Both PW-8 & PW-9 supported the prosecution case.
.~
'\-
11. The learned Sessions Judge having regard to the
aforementioned materials brought on record by the prosecu-
tion found the appellant guilty of commission of offence and re-
B corded a judgment of conviction and sentence in the manner as
noticed hereinbefore.
· 12.The High Court on-appeal preferred by appellant has
~
affirmed the said judgment of conviction and sentence.
l
c 13. Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, learned counsel appear-
ing on behalf of appellant would raise the following contentions
in support of this appeal:
(1) That the recovery of stone having been made from
an open place, no reliance could have been pla·ced
D
thereupon by the Courts below.
(2) The evidence of PW Nos.3, 4, 5 & 6 could not have
been relied upon by the Courts below as it was wholly
unbelievable that although they had been working in
E the adjoining fields, but did not come to the rescue r l

of the deceased despite her cries.
(3) P\/\f-1 the informant in the first information report did
not make any statement as to how the death of the
deceased took place and as such prosecution must
F be held to have failed to prove its case. ·~

(4) No reliance can be placed on the statement of the
appellant purported to have been made under
Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as
G no requisite warning, before making the statement,
that the same can be used against him in the criminal
case was given.
.1-
14. Learned counsel appearing on behatf of the
respondent, on the other hand, supported the impugned
H judgment.
MONDRI SREENU v. STATE OF ANDHRA 503
PRADESH
--1 15.The background fact in which the offence was alleged A
to have been committed is not in dispute. The relationship
between the parties is also not in dispute. The fact that appellant
had married PW-2 and they had been living separately for a
few years before he came to his parents-in-laws' house to live
with his wife has also not been disputed. B

- ) 16.0ut of those witnesses who had deposed in support of
the prosecution case for proving the guilt of appellant, not only
PW-5, but also the second wife of the appellant who are inde-
pendent witnesses, to a large extent, supported the prosecu-
tion case. The strained relationship between appellant and the c
deceased must be held to have been proved. PW-2 who is the
wife of the appellant, had completely supported the prosecu-
tion case in that regard.
17. The prosecution case must also be considered from
D
another angle. PW-6, although is a resident of Chinthalagudem
,;--i Village, who had been earning his livelihood by working as a
mason, used to visit Bhadrachalam. He found the appellant talk-
ing with his brother at Bhupathiraopeta Colony at about 7 .30
P.M. on 22.10.1999. Appellant made an extra judicial confes-
sion before him. The reason that the deceased did not allow E
him to live with his wife (PW-2) was said to be the reason for
commission of the offence. It was at that point of time he caught
hold of appellant and handed him over to the S.H.O. of the
Bhadrachalam Police Station.
F
18. Yet again in the Police Station, the appellant made a
confession. Apart from the Investigating Officer (PW-18), a con~
fession was also made before PW-14 Yalam Kendal Rao, a
resident of Bhadrachalam.
19. Appellant did not raise any contention that he did not G
make any extra judicial confession or a confession before the
4-
Judicial Officer as also before the PW-14. Indisputably, he was
produced before the Mandal Officer. The investigation of the
case was taken up by PW-18 Devadas. He produced the ap-
pellant before the Manda! Magistrate R. Veera Reddy on H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.

\---
A 4.11.1999. His statement was recorded under Section 164 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure.
20. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
Mr. Ansar Ahmad Chowdhary that PW-15 Veera Reddy did not
comply with the provisions contained in Section 164 Cr.P.C.
B may not be of much significance. Bhadrachalam falls within a
scheduled area in the State of A.P. The State of A.P., this Court
t-
can take judicial notice, had not extended the provisions of the
new Cr.P.C. to the scheduled areas of the State of A.P. This fact ...
would be evident from the fact that appellant was examined in
c terms of Section 342 of old Cr.P.C. As there is no separation of
the Judicial and Executive Officers, appellant was produced
before the Executive Officer for recording his statement under
Section 164 of Cr.P.C. As the provisions of the old Code were
applicable, the precautions which were required to be taken in
D terms of Section 164 of the 1973 Code were not complied with.
21. Be that as it may, appellant never retracted the said
confession. A statement made by the accused under Section
164 of Cr.P.C. is admissible in evidence. Apart from the juditial
confession,- as noticed hereinbefore, the appellant has also
E made extra judicial confession before PW-6.
22. PW-17 Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi, Civil Assistant Surgeon,
Area Hospital, Bhadrachalam, who conducted the post-mortem
over the dead body of Chandramma, found the following ante-
F mortem injuries:
·~-
1. Lacerated wound 3 x 2 x 2 ems. over the forehead.

2. Loss of right eye-ball.
3. Lacerated would 3 x 4 x 1 ems. over dorsal aspect
G of left foot.

4. Lacerated would 3 x 1 x 1 ems. over left side of +
abdomen.

5. Abrasion 3 x 2 ems. over right elbow region.
H
MONDRI SREENU v. STATE OF ANDHRA 505
PRADESH

6. Contusion 5 x 6 ems. on right temporal region. A
7. Contusion 3 x 3 ems. over right cheek.
23. The said Dr. Jhansi Lakshmi was examined as PW-
17. in her deposition before the learned Sessions Judge, she
categorically stated that those ante-mortem injuries were pas- B
· sible to have been caused by a blunt object like stone or stick.
She found a fracture of ribs on the right side of the deceased,
as a result of which a laceration of the right lung was found to be
present. She also found 300 CC fluids blood in the right plural
cavity, ligature mark on the neck of the deceased, congestion c
and haemorrhage by the side of the ligature mark and sub- du-
ral haematoma on right temporal region. In the aforementioned
background, PW-1 had not been able to specifically state the
cause of death and he must be held to be a truthful witness. The
exact cause of the death of the deceased, thus, in the afore-
0
mentioned situation could not have been certain to a layman,
like PW-1 and other witnesses.
24. It may be true that the stone was found in an open place.
But unless and until the site thereof was pointed out, as the In-
vestigating Officer (PW-18) categorically stated, he could not E
have identified the weapon which was used for commission of
the offence. It was found to be blood stained. Apart from the
stone, a stick was also pointed out by the appellant which led to
its discovery.
25. It is, therefore, not a case where the Courts below could F
have totally ignored recovery of the said articles. Furthermore,
although not strictly admissible, even a confession was made
by appellant in the Police Station before PW-14 and one Seetha
Ramulu. Their statements before the Court are also now not in
dispute. G
26. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant that
the 'last seen' theory propounded by the prosecution cannot be
relied upon, is, in our opinion, not of much substance. It has not
been denied or disputed that the brothers of PW-1, namely, Batta H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
~
)

A Pedda Veeraiah (PW-3) and Batta China Veeraiah (PW-4) had !---·
lands by the. side of the land of the deceased and PW-1. PW-3 '
in his statement, categorically stated that although appellant and
the deceased were found to be quarrelling with each other, he
ignored the same as that had become almost a routine affair.
B He came to know about non-return of the deceased from the
field only in the evening.
27. Furthermore, not only PW-3 and PW-4 but other pros- )..---
ecution witnesses whose independence is not in question, also
proved thepresence of appellant near the place of occurrence
c on the date of occurrence between 1.00 P.M. and 3.00 P.M.
According to the post- mortem report, that was the probable
period during which the offence is said to have been commit-
ted.
28. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the opin-
D
ion that there is no merit in this appeal which is dismissed ac-
cordingly.
~-
R.P. Appeal dismissed.

.___
,.

/