BEJJANKI RAJAM Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment of my learned brother. The facts of the case have been set out fully in the judgment about to be pronounced and it would be unnecessary to reiterate them.

(2.) While agreeing with the conviction and sentence proposed to be passed against the accused, there are, however, two matters to which I wish to address myself, viz., (1) to what extent is the statement of the accused in Ex. P-1G admissible in evidence, and (2) what is the scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. I would not after the authoritative and weighty pronouncement of the Judicial Committee in Pulukuri Kottayya v. Emperor AIR 1947 PC 67, have ventured to examine the whole matter as if it was res Integra, but having regard to the observations of any brother Sanjeeva Row Nayudu expressing doubts on that judgment, J. hasten, with the greatest respect, to say that I am unable to find myself in agreement with him.

(3.) On the first question, it may be stated that Ex. P-4 is the F. I. R. relating to the murder of Vanga Venkati issued 011 the information given by his wife, P.W. 16, Veeramma in Ex. P-5 on 27-6-1955 at 7-15 A.M. The Investigating Officer, Deendayal, P.W. 2, who recorded the statement registered a case against the accused for an offence under Section 302 as Crime No. 29/1957 and issued the F.I.R. He thereafter went to the house of the accused there found the dead body of Rajamma also and that the dead body of Venkati was lying in the cattle-shed. He then says that when he questioned the accused regarding the death of Rajamma, the accused said that his mother was raped and murdered by Bootla Venkati and on seeing this he grew annoyed and murdered him with a roof-Bolt. P.W. 2 states that he then recorded the accuseds statement and sent it to the Sub-Inspector. This is the F. I. R. Ex. P-4-A. It may be noticed from Ex. P-4-A that this statement of the accused was recorded at 8 a.m. and if this is considered with the evidence of P.W. 2 in cross-examination that he arrested the accused at 7-45 a.m., it becomes clear that the statement by the accused on the interrogation of the police officer was giver, after he was arrested. It is thus clear beyond doubt that the accused did not give a complaint concerning the death of his mother so as to give it the status of a first information concerning the death of his mother, but in explaining the death of Venga Venkati he was stating how his mother was killed and by whom and therefore it cannot be said that the death of the accuseds mother was not under investigation when the accused made the statement, Ex. P-4-A. It is thus seen that as soon as P.W. 2 found the body of Rajamma and that of Venkati in the cattle-shed, he proceeded to arrest the accused and to question him regarding the murder of Venkati, The statement of the accused was thus made during [ho investigation of the murder of Venkati and consequently it is hit by Section 162 Cr. P. C. Even otherwise, in so far as the confession is concerned, it is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In my view, it is therefore not a case of a complaint to the police in the case of the death of Rajamma. Even if it is considered to be a statement made during the investigation of the accuseds mothers death under Section 174 Cr. P. C. as indeed P.W. 2 suspected foul play it is one made in the course of investigation and is inadmissible under Section 162 Cr. P. C. I am clearly of the view that Ex. P-10 is inadmissible and must be ruled out.