THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Appeal No.1730 of 2006 Date: 30-3-2010 Between State of A.P., Rep. by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad … Appellant/State and Dudam Srinivas … Respondent/Accused THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Appeal No.1730 of 2006 Oral Judgment: (per D.S.R.Varma, J.) Heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the appellant. 2. State is the appellant. Appeal is against the judgment dated 20-10-2005 in Sessions Case No.83 of 2002 passed by the III Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Asifabad, Adilabad district recording an order of acquittal of the respondent for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 3. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased and the accused were wife and husband, that the accused sold away some of the house hold articles, that the deceased asked her father P.W.1 to search for another house at another place, that P.W.1 searched for another portion of house at a different place, that the accused and the deceased joined the new house and after five days thereafter on 09-10-2001 the accused went to his neighbour, by name Narshimulu P.W.4 and informed on phone to P.W.3 who is a neighbour of P.W.1 that the deceased had become unconscious and further requested him to inform the same to P.W.1. The message had been passed on to P.W.1. Then the mother of the deceased also came to the house of the deceased. P.W.1 lodged a complaint on 10-10-2001 at 7 a.m., which was marked as Ex.P-1. P.W.9 the Sub Inspector of Police received the complaint and FIR was registered. P.W.6, who is the doctor, conducted post-mortem examination over the body of deceased. After completing the other formalities, a charge-sheet has been filed. The trial court having gone into the merits of the case and the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, recorded the order of acquittal against the accused. Hence the appeal. 4. The main thrust of the case of prosecution is that of P.Ws.5 and 7, before whom the accused allegedly made an extra judicial confession. It is known proposition that extra judicial confession though valid, is a weak piece of evidence and cannot stand on its own and the same requires corroboration, particularly in cases where the prosecution places reliance on circumstantial evidence. 5. In the present case, it is on record that the alleged confessions made by the accused before P.Ws.5 and 7, were found to be made in the presence of P.W.8 the Investigating Officer also. In other words, at the time when the alleged confessions were recorded by P.W.8, P.Ws.5 and 7 were also present there. Therefore, the trial court had rightly recorded the finding that the said confession lost character of extra judicial confession and it is in the nature of confession under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. There are other facts and circumstances that have been tried to be utilized by the prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, but the said evidence is not, in any way, useful to the case of prosecution. 6. Coming to the medical evidence, P.W.6 the doctor who conducted autopsy over the body of deceased, had noted that the thyroid cartilage was crushed into pieces. But, on the contrary, in the FSL Report, which was marked as Ex.P-5, it was specifically pointed out that the thyroid cartilage was morphologically intact. So, these two views are absolutely divergent to each other and the report of the FSL, which is more than technical and reliable, alone has to be accepted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Even otherwise, in view of this conflict of opinions -- one is based on human interference by anatomical verification and the other by a technical precision, this court is unable to arrive at a definite conclusion as to the culpability on the part of the accused. 7. We had gone through the judgment of the trial court carefully. Except this point, there are no other points in favour of the prosecution and therefore, we are not referring the other part of the evidence. 8. For the aforementioned reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. 9. In the result, the criminal appeal is dismissed, confirming the judgment under appeal. ___________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ___________________ JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO 30th March, 2010. Ak THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO Criminal Appeal No.1730 of 2006 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by DSRV, J.) 30th March, 2010.