RAMAMURTHY Vs. STATE:

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE is made to a judgment of the Sessions Division, Vellore, in S.C.No,415 of 2005 whereby the appellants two in number stood charged under Sections 120-B, 302 and 201 of IPC, and on trial, they were found guilty and awarded life sentence under Sec.302 IPC, 1 year Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.120(B) IPC and 2 years Rigorous Imprisonment under Sec.201 IPC.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be stated as follows:

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that as far as A-2 was concerned, the prosecution rested its entire case on the extra-judicial confession alleged to have been given by A-2 to P.W.3, the VAO, on 9.11.2004 at about 6.00 A.M. that the prosecution added further certain material objects which were recovered from A-2 pursuant to the alleged confessional statement given to the police officer that the trial Court should have rejected both pieces of evidence for the simple reason that as far as the extra-judicial confession was concerned, from the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 it would be quite clear that A-2 was actually kept in the police station on 6th, 7th and 8th of November, 2004 that if to be so, that cannot but be an illegal custody that only in the next morning, according to the prosecution that was on 9.11.2004, A-2 came forward to give a confessional statement to the VAO that it would be clearly indicative of the fact that A-2 was actually kept under police custody for a period of three days illegally, and thus, it would certainly lead to the irresistible conclusion that such an extra-judicial confession as found under Ex.P2, could have been extracted by procuring the service of P.W.3, the VAO, and thus the extra-judicial confession should not be relied upon and it should have been rejected.