STATE OF A P Vs. KANDA GOPALUDU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC. The trial court relying upon the extra-judicial confession made before PW. 1, PW. 2 and PW. 3 found the respondent guilty. The trial court also relied upon the evidence of PW. 9, the Investigating Officer corroborated by the evidence of PW. 5, Doctor. On appeal being preferred by the accused, the High Court acquitted the accused respondent herein.

(2.) This appeal is preferred by the State by special leave.

(3.) The High Court recorded the acquittal on the ground that PW.1 and PW.2 before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession are strangers and there is no reason for the respondent to make the extra-judicial confession before PW.1, PW.2 and PW.3. The High Court also found that the statements of PWs. 1 and 2 were full of contradiction and artificial. On this ground the accused was acquitted, however, the High Court has not assigned any reason with regard to the alleged contradiction between the statements of PW.1 and PW.2 and the acquittal is not supported at all. It is now well established principle of law that the judicial decision is based on reasons. We have been taken through the evidence of PWs.1, 2 and 3 before whom the accused made extra-judicial confession. It is now established principle of law that extra-judicial confession is admissible if it inspired confidence and made voluntarily. The High Court reasoning that the accused has made a confession statement before a stranger is totally perverse. The evidence on record show that PW.1 is the Sarpanch of the village, PW.2 and PW.3 are also ward members of the village gram panchayat.