ALLURI RAMAYYA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-original accused Alluri Ramayya Mondi has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Chandrapur, under Ss.302 and 201 of the Penal Code and aggrieved by the said conviction, the present appeal has been filed.

(2.) The victim of the crime is Alluri Malladu, uncle of Ramayya. Ramayya and Malladu were living separately in the same village. Ramayya was living with his wife and children. Ramayya is a liquor addict and used to mercilessly beat his wife. On 12th Aug. 1982 his wife left the house and did not return up to the night. Malladu went to Ramayya at 8 or 9 p.m. to advise Ramayya to behave properly. Ramayya was enraged and gave blows with axe (Art. 4) on his head and face which proved to be fatal. Malladu fell in the verandah. It was raining, Ramayya dragged Malladu's body for about 300 feet and left in a pit near a temple. In the morning the dead body was found. Samayya, the son of the deceased learnt from Shankar son of Ramayya about the incident. Police patil Shinod Kankaiyya (P.W. 1) went to the place. On the basis of signs of dragging and blood, police patil went to the house of Ramayya where Ramayya was found wearing Dhoti (Art. 4), Vest (Art. 6), Pancha or Kurta (Art. 5). They were stained with blood, police patil found bloodstains on the floor and the bamboo matting in a verandah of the house. The floor was found smeared with dung. Police patil and Sarpanch of the village went on foot to Sironcha. They reached police station at about 5 p.m. and lodged a complaint. P.S.I. Wasalwar registered an offence and went to the village for investigation. He drew inquest panchanama of the place where the dead body was lying. It was dark by that time. On the next day, investigation was continued. Ramayya was already detained by the villagers. Wasalwar kept him under surveillance. On the next day, that is on 14th Aug. 1982, statements of witnesses were recorded when it was discovered that the accused had made extra-judicial confession before Shioral Pocham (P.W. 8) and Onam (P.W. 9) of having killed Malladu. The accused was arrested. He told that he had kept the axe in his house and offered to produce the same. He took the police party to his house and from the loft produced the axe which was bloodstained near the butt. The doctor noticed the following external and internal injuries on the dead body. External injuries (1) Contusion over the right temporal region, size 2 c.m. X 2 c.m. (2) Lacerated wound near the right zygote bone, size 2 c.m. X c.m. by bone deep. (3) Abrasion over the back in the middle, size 8 c.m. X 2 c.m. (4) Lacerated wound on the right mandible near injury No.2, size 2 c.m. X c.m. by bone deep.: Internal injuries (1) Fracture of right maxillary bone. (2) Fracture of right zygote. (3) Fracture right side frontal bone of the skull. He opined that death was due to those injuries Chemical Analyser reported that the earth (Art.2), Bamboo mat (Art.1), Axe (Art.4), Lungi ( Art.5) and Vest (Art.6) were stained with human blood.

(3.) As many as 12 witnesses were examined in the Sessions trial. That Malladu met with a homicidal death is duly proved by the evidence of Medical Officer Dr. Kailasham (P.W. 5) and panch Dandella ( P.W. 2). There is not and cannot be any challenge to this conclusion. The trial Court relying on the extra-judicial confession and circumstantial evidence of existence of blood stains on the floor and mats in the house, the clothes of the accused, the existence of marks of blood from the house of the accused up to the place where the dead body of Malladu was lying, convicted the accused, Shioral (P.W. 8) and Onam (P. W. 9) deposed about the extrajudicial confession. They had gone near the dead body on learning that it was lying near the temple. Onam says that when he asked the accused, the acused said that he had killed Malladu and whatever happened, happened and it was his bad luck. Witness admits that when this Statement was made, the police patil was present in the crowd Shioral also gives similar version. 3-A. The first point is whether the confession is inadmissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act, because it was made when police patil was present in the crowd. That a police patil appointed under he Maharashtra Village Police Act 1967 is a police officer within the meaning assigned to the term in section 25 of the Evidence Act is not disputed before us. There was, however, considerable debate on a point as to whether presence of a police officer in a crowd when confession is made by the accused to someone else attracts the bar of section 25. We do not think so. To hold that way would amount to re-writing the provision and to substitute the word "to" by "in presence of". Such interpretation would be also against the spirit of the provision. Imagine a situation where accused makes a voluntary and instantaneous confession of his crime to his bosom friend standing in a crowd which consists also of a police officer (whose presence the accused may or may not know), who has in no manner either influenced the accused or taken any part in bringing about the confession. Imagine further that confession is not made within the hearing of the police officer. Is it the letter and spirit of the provision that even confession made in such a situation is hit by section 25? Answer has to be in the negative. It is, therefore, not possible to accept the submission that mere physical presence without anything more makes the confession inadmissible.