TADIPAMULA SATYANARAYANA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Tadipamula Satyanarayana, has been convicted under Section 302 I.P.C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life, for the murder of his uncle Ranganayakulu at about 2-30 A.M. on 6-2-1957. He was the 1st accused in the case and an alleged friend of his, named Lakshmana Rao was the 2nd accused. Both were charged under Sections 34 and 302, Indian Penal Code with having jointly committed the murder. The prosecution story was that the appellant owing to enmity, stabbed the deceased on the abdomen with a spear while the latter was sleeping in front of his house, that the 2nd accused accompanied and assisted him and that they were observed running away from the scene immediately afterwards. The learned Additional Sessions Judge gave the 2nd accused the benefit of the doubt and acquitted him, as his confession was self-exculpatory and the incriminating matter against him was only the appelpants retracted confession. We are not concerned with the merits of the acquittal although it is necessary to refer to the 2nd accused in the course of our judgment in order to appreciate the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) There was no direct witness to the crime. The conviction is based on a confession made by the appellant before a Magistrate, which was refracted at the trial. The questions that arise for consideration are whether the confession was voluntary and whether it is true and is sufficiently corroborated.

(3.) The facts in evidence have to be briefly stated. The appellant, a young man aged about 20 years, was working as a messenger in the telegraph branch of the Tadepalligudam Post Office. The deceased, a bus conductor, aged about 40 years, was the appellants junior paternal uncle and thev were living separately in the same house at Tadepalligudem. The appellant and his younger brother and their mother were livng in the western portion of the house, while the deceased and his wife P.W. 1 were living in the eastern portion. The 2nd accused was a private tutor at the place and used to visit the appellant. The house stood in the name of the appellants mother, but the deceased claimed a one-third share in it and wanted partition. The appellant did not agree, in spite of mediation by P.Ws. 4 and 7 and one G. Appalaswamy. So the appellant and the deceased fell out about four months prior to the occurrence. About two or three months prior to the occurrence, the deceased picked up a quarrel with the appellant for planting brinjals in their yard. Thereafter they were not even on talking terms. About 10 days before the occurrence, the 2nd accused got the spear M.O. 1 made by the blacksmith P.W. 11.