Holding

The High Court’s acquittal was a plausible view given the unreliable extra‑judicial confession, delayed witness statements, lack of motive and insufficient circumstantial proof, so the appeals were dismissed.

Summary

The parents of Bal Reddy were murdered in their Hyderabad home on 3 December 1997. The prosecution charged the daughter‑in‑law (Swarnalatha) and five others under sections 120‑B, 302, 392 and 201 IPC, relying mainly on circumstantial evidence, an extra‑judicial confession recorded by the son‑in‑law of the deceased, the testimony of a taxi driver and a test identification parade. The trial court convicted the accused of murder but acquitted them of the other charges; the High Court later acquitted them of the murder charge as well. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the reliability of the extra‑judicial confession, the unexplained delay in recording statements under sections 161 and 164 CrPC, the late conduct of the identification parade, the absence of any motive and the overall weakness of the circumstantial case. Finding the evidence unreliable and the High Court’s reasoning plausible, the Court dismissed the State’s appeals, upholding the acquittal.

Issues considered

The admissibility and reliability of the extra‑judicial confession made by the accused before the son‑in‑law of the deceased.
Whether the delay in recording statements of key witnesses under sections 161 and 164 CrPC and the late test identification parade vitiate the prosecution case.
Whether the circumstantial evidence disclosed was sufficient to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the prosecution was required to establish a motive for the alleged murder.
Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s acquittal under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 161, s. 164
Constitution of Indias. 136
Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 201, s. 302, s. 392

Subjects

murderextra‑judicial confessioncircumstantial evidencetest identification paradedelay in recording statementsmotiveacquittalArticle 136evidence lawcriminal procedure

Judgment

[2009] 12 S.C.R. 289

-' STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH
v.
S. SWARNALATHA & ORS.
A

(Criminal Appeal Nos. 315-316 of 2002)
AUGUST 4, 2009
B
[S.B. SINHA AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

PENAL CODE, 1860:
-cJ,
s. 302 - Murder - A couple found murdered in their c
house - Their daughter-in-law, her uncle and 4 others
prosecuted on charges ulss 120-B, 392, 302 and 201 -
Prosecution based on circumstantial evidence - Trial court
acquitting accused of charges u/s 392, 201 and 120-B -
Conviction uls 302 - Acquittal by High Court -- HELD: There D
are discrepancies in evidence of prosecution witnesses -
-t Extra-judicial confession becomes doubtful - There is no
.. explanation for delay in recording statements of witnesses by
police and holding test identification parade - There is no
motive for the crime - Besides, the view of the High Court in
E
recording the acquittal is plausible one - Supreme Court
would not interfere with a judgment of acquittal in exercise of
its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution - Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - ss. 161 and 164 - Evidence
- Extra-judicial confession - Test identification parade -
Criminal Law - Absence of motive for crime - Constitution of
F
India, 1951 - Article 136.

The parents of PW-1 were found murdered in their
house on 3.12.1997. PW- 1 lodged a complaint with the
police stating that five persons came to his house, killed G
his parents ransacked the house, tied his wife, took away
some gold ornaments belonging to his mother and his
wife (accused no. 1) and ran away. His wife stated to have
untied herself when she regained consciousness and
289 H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A called her neighbour. She later made confession on
4.1.f998 to the son-in-law of the deceased (PW-6), who
handed her over to police. She was stated to have
confessed to PW-6 that she told her uncle (A-2) that she
was being harassed by her in-laws and on her
s information the accused came to the house. Since there
was no eye witness, the trial court relying upon the
circumstantial evidence acquitted the accused of the
charges u/ss 392, 201 anid 120-8 IPC, but convicted and
sentenced them u/s 302 IPC. On appeal by the accused, ,\. -
c the High Court acquitted all of them of the charge of s.302
IPC also. Aggrieved, the State filed the appeals.

Dismissing the appE!als, the Court

HELD: 1.1. An extra-judicial confession is a weak
D piece of evidence, although in given situations reliance
thereupon can be placedl. In the instant case, there is no
reason as to why the extra.judicial confession should be
+-
made by A-1 before PW-El, the son-in-law of the deceased,
particularly, when PW6 has admitted that the family of the
E deceased was not in cordial terms with him. PW6
admitted that prior to the making of confession to him,
A-1 never talked to him. In the circumstances, the extra -
judicial confession purported to have been made by A-1
to PW6 becomes doubtful. The records of the case also
F do not disclose any confession to have been made by
A-1 before PW6. Name of PW6 did not occur in the case
diary. Furthermore, \PW6 allegedly took A-1 to the police
station. The remand report shows that she was
remanded to judicial cll.lstody. When she was taken to
G police custody is not known. Besides, the extra-judicial
confessions stated to have been made by her have been
retracted. The alleged confessional statements made by
A-2 to A-6 were treated as circumstances No.5, 8, 9, 10
and 12. PW3 admits that A-2 to A-6 were taken to the travel
H agency on 14.12.1997. Why they were arrested on 4-5
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S. 291
SWARNALATHA & ORS.
,.,. January, 1998 has not been explained. [Para 9 and 10) A
[297-F-H; 298-A-C]

State of UP. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) SCC 505 and State
of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254, referred to.

1.2. There are discrepancies in the statement of PW- B
3, the taxi driver who is said to have taken A-2 to A-6 on
his taxi to the house of occurrence. PW3 in his statement
u/s 164 Cr.P.C. mentioned the names of A-2 and A-3 only
--J.
as the persons who had gone to hire the taxi. However,
in his deposition before the court, he named all the c
accused having engaged the taxi. The statements of PW3
and PW6 were recorded only on 31.1.1998. The
Investigating Officer did not assign any reason as to why
so much delay was caused in recording their statements.
A panchnama in regard to the scene of offence was . D
j conducted. PW6 was admittedly not present at that time.
' • The statements of PW3 an,d PW6 were recorded u/s'164
Cr.P.C. much before recording their statements u/s 161.
Further, PW-3 and PW-6 are not trust worthy witnesses.
[Para 7, 13 and 15] [297-8; 298-G-H; 299-A-G] E
Ganesh Bhavan Patel & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
(1978) 4 sec 371, referred to.

1.3. The purported test identification parade, as
regards A-2 to A-4, wherein PW3 is alleged to have F
participated, was conducted on 31.1.1998. No explanation
has been offered as to why it could not be held earlier as
all the accused were in custody. [Para 8) [297-0)

1.4. The prosecution did not assign any motive for G
commission of the offence. [Para 14) [299-D]
·+--
2. The High Court has recorded a well reasoned
judgment of acquittal. The view taken by the High Court
is a plausible one. It is ·now well settled that if two views
are possible, this Court would not interfere with a H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A judgment of acquittal in exercise of its jurisdiction under
Article 136 of the Constitution. [Para 15] [300-B-C]

State of Punjab vs. Sohan Singh (2009) 8 SCALE 260,
relied on.
B Case Law Reference:

(1985) sec 505 referred to para 8

(2006) 12 sec 254 referred to para 8

c (1978) 4 sec 371 referred to para 13

(2009) 8 SCALE 260 relied on para 15

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
Nos. 315-316 of 2002.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 02.08.2001 of the
High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Criminal Appeal
Nos. 461 and 464 of 2001.

Manoj Saxena, Rahul Shukla and T.V. George, for the
E Appellants.

D. Ramkrishna Reddy and T. Anamika, for the
Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
S.B. SINHA, J. 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh is before
us aggrieved by and dissatisfied with a judgment and order
dated 2.8.2001 whemby and whereunder a judgment of
acquittal was recorded upon setting aside a judgment of
G conviction and sentence dated 19.3.2001 passed by the
Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Sessions Case
No.331 of 1998.

2. Respondents herein were accused of entering into a
H conspiracy with each other to commit murder of one Bal Reddy
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S. 293
SWARNALATHA & ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.)
and his wife Kalavathi. They were in-laws of the accused No.1. A
• 't- Murder of Bal Reddy and his wife Kalavathi were committed
at about 2.30 pm on 3.12.1997. Allegedly accused No.1 (the
daughter-in-law of the deceased), with a view to cause
disappearance of the evidence also give a false information
with an intention to save the offenders from legal punishment. B
Indisputably, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The
entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence.
In proving its case against the respondents, the prosecution
--;.
mainly relied upon the evidence of PW3 (the driver of a taxi)
and PW6 (son-in-law of the deceased). ·'
c
The First Information Report was lodged by one G.
Damodar Reddy (son of the deceased and husband of the
accused No.1). According to him, on the aforementioned day
and time, five persons had come to his house. They sat with D
;, his father in the drawing room for about half an hour. Later they

- 'I' wanted to have tea whereupon his father asked his wife to get
five cups of tea. Tea was prepared by the accused No. 1. After
taking tea, they allegedly brought his father to the TV room and
pressed the mouth of both of his parents. Some of them tied E
the legs and hands as well as neck of his parents with clothes
as a result whereof they died. They asked his wife to hand over
to them the keys of the almirah kept in the said room and on
'¥-
receipt thereof they ransacked the same. They thereafter came
to his room and with the key offered by his wife, another almirah F
,' '
was opened and ransacked. The accused took away gold,
Pustela thadu and Kammalu from his wife. They also took gold
Pustela Thadu from the neck of his mother. While going out,
they tied the hands, legs and mouth of his wife also. They had
cut the telephone wire and bolted the TV room door and
G
drawing room door from outside. His wife lost her
+· consciousness. At about 5.00 pm, she regained consciousness
and untied herself. She called the tenant of a portion of the
house Tulasi by name through the window whereafter the latter
informed him about the incident on phone whereupon he rushed
H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2009] 12 S.C.R.

A back to his house. According to his wife, the culprits were aged ~
between 25 to 32 years.

3. On the basis of said statements, a first information report
was recorded. Allegedly on or about 4.1.1998, the accused
No.1 made a confession before G. Sukender (PW6) when he
B
allegedly had gone to the house of the deceased in absence
of Damodar Reddy. She is said to have told him that as she
was being harassed by her parents-in-law, she had complained
thereabout to her uncle, the accused No.2. She also informed ~ .
that her uncle had asked her as to whether her parents-in-law
c were to be killed to which proposal she agreed and promised
to inform them the date on which they can be killed.

In terms of the said conspiracy, as information was sent
to the accused No.2 by the accused No.1.
D
PW6 was also told that accused No.2 had asked for some
...
money to which she stated that she would give gold ornaments
to them. Pursuant thereto five persons came in a car at about
2.30 pm on 3.12.1997. They were served with tea and with the
help of telephone wire, all the accused strangulated Bal Reddy
~

-
E
and Kalavathi as also by putting pillow and a blanket over the
face. 50 tolas of gold was given to them. She had also given
her gold Pusthalatadu to accused No.2 on being asked. During
the course of the incident, they tied her also with a saree.
,,,
F 4. PW6 thereafter took accused No.1 to CCS, Hyderabad
and handed her over to the Inspector of Police (PW14). She
was interrogated whereupon she led the police to a village
commonly known as Arutla. Her confessional statement was
recorded in the presence of PW6, PW8 and PW10. She had -·
G offered to show two houses of Accused No.2 and others;
pursuant whereto the houses of Accused Nos.2 to 6 were
raided. They were arrested and were interrogated. Allegedly
pursuant to their disclosure, seizures of some stolen goods
were effected.
H
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S. SWARNALATHA 295
& ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

A test identification parade was conducted in 1espect of A
'f-
the accused Nos.2 to 4.

5. Javeed Hussain (PW3) is a taxi driver. The taxi
belonged to one M/s Bhavani Travels, Dilsukhnagar. According
to him, five persons had engaged his taxi for going to B
'Yadagirigutta'. They asked him to go to Balkampet first with a
view to pick up one person. He took his taxi to a house situated
near a temple. They entered the said house at about 2.15 pin
asking him to wait for them at that place. After about half an
hour one of the said five persons came and offered him a cup
of tea. He identified him to be the accused No.4. After half an
c
hour all of them came out of the house and asked him to drop
them at Ring Road, Dilsukhnagar, stating that they decided to
drop the idea of going to Yadagirigutta. For hiring the said taxi,
. a sum of Rs.500/- was given to him and as they did not go to
their destination, they \fllere entitled to some refund. The taxi was D
~ s;:iid to h;:ive been booked by one Rajasekhar Reddy. He was
.,, neither arrested nor examined by the Investigating officer.

6. The learned Trial Judge held the respondents guilty of
commission of the offences wherewith they were charged on E
the basis of the following purported circumstantial evidence:

"(1) Both the deceased died homicidal death.
v
(2) The two deceased, A-1 and Damodar Reddy were
residing in the same house. F

(3)· A-2 to A-6 engaged the taxi of PW3.

(4) PW3, who took A-2 to A-6, saw the accused
·entering into the house and he waited for half an
G
hour.
+-
(5) After committing the offence, the gold ornaments
from the house were found missing .

. (6) A-2 to A-6 engaged the taxi to go to Yadagirigutta H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A but they ~1ot down from the taxi at the Ring Road,
Dilsukhnagar.

(7) Extra judicial confession made by A-1 before PW6
and PW6 produced a-1 before PW14.
B (8) In pursuance of the confessional statement, A-1
took the police and panch witnesses to the houses
of A-2 to A-6.

(9) A-2 to A-6 alleged to have discovered the gold
c ornaments from the possession of A-2 to A-6.

(10) The accused did not claim the gold ornaments.

( 11) A-2 to A-4 alleged to have identified by PW3 in the
test identification parade.
D
(12) A-4 alleged to have pledged M.0.14 with the State
Bank of Hyderabad.

(13) The conduct of A-1 immediately after the incident."

E 7. Circumstance No.1 is admitted. As regards
circumstance No.2, however, there is no evidence that accused
No.1 was present in her house at the relevant time.
Circumstances Nos.3 to 6 are said to have been proved by
PW3.
F
One Rajasekhar Reddy, as noticed heretobefore, engaged
the taxi from Jaya Durga Bhawani Travels. The Investigating
Officer did not examine him. He also did not visit the office of
the said travel agent.

G In his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure PW3 had stated that three persons had gone to
Durga Bhawani Travels to engage a taxi but in his deposition
before the Court, he stated that all the six persons had met the
owner thereof. He although did not know the names of accused
H
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S. SWARNALATHA 297
& ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]

Nos.2 to 6, according to him one Rami Reddy, Prabhakar A
)>.
Reddy and Ayub came to hire the taxi. No attempt was made
by the Investigating Officer also to examine one 'Murthy' who
is said to be the proprietor of Durgaahavani Travel Agency.

PW3 in his statement under Section 164 mentioned the
B
names of Accused Nos.2 and 3 9nly as the persons who had
gone to hire the taxi. However, in his deposition before the
coJrt, he took the name of all the accused having engaged the
taxi.
·-11
PW3 was not taken by the investigating officer to the house c
in question. He, therefore, did not identify the house where the
offence has taken place.

8. The purported test identification parade, wherein PW3
is alleged to have participated insofar as the accused Nos. 2 D
to 4, was conducted on 31.1.1998. No explanation has been
t offered as to why it could not be held earlier as all the accused
._ .. were in custody .

9. So far as the extra judicial confessions purported to
have been made by the accused are concerned, we may notice E
that accused No.1 has retracted therefrom.

We do not find any reason as to why such extra judicial
v confession should be made before the son-in-law of the
deceased, particularly when PW6 has admitted in no uncertain F
terms that the family of the deceased was not in cordial terms
with him. PW6 admitted that prior to the making of confession
to him, accused No.1 never talked to him. Why she, instead of
her husband, would confide in PW 6, is beyond all
comprehension. In the aforementioned situation, the extra G
judicial confession purported to have been made by the
+ accused Nos .. 1 to PW6 becomes doubtful. Extra-judicial
confession as is well known is a weak piece of evidence,
although in given situations reliance thereupon can be placed.
[See State of UP. v. M.K. Anthony (1985) s<;c 505 and State
H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram ((2006) 12 SCC 254] '(

10. Furthermore, PW6 allegedly took A 1 to the police
station. The remand report shows that the accused No.1 was
remanded to judicial custody. When she was taken to police
custody is not known. The records of the case also do not
B
disclose that any confession was made by accused No.1 before
PW6. According to the Investigating Officer, accused No.1 is
said to have made confession before her husband. Name of
PW6 did not occur in the case diary.
-+ -
c Alleged confessional statements made by Accused Nos.2
to 6 were treated as circumstances No.5, 8, 9, 10 and 12. PW3
admits that Accused Nos. :! to 6 were brought to Durga Bhavani
Travels on 14.12.1997. W'rry they were arrested on 4-5, January,
1998 has not been explained.
D
11. We may also place on record that the learned Trial
Judge has acquitted the respondents from the charge of
Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code.
. ....
12. Some gold ornaments are said to have been pledged
E with the State Bank of Hyderabad by Accused No.4. It has been
brought on record that in the application for grant of loan, he is
said to have signed in Telugu although ordinarily he signs in
English. His signature was also not found on the loan register.
Accused No.4 was said to have been introduced by one
F Dasarath whose account number was not mentioned in any
document of the Bank. Accused No.4 was in police custody
from 14.12.1997. It is, therefore, difficult to believe that he had
applied for loan on 22 . 12.1997.

G 13. It stands accepted that the statements of PW3 and
PW6 were recorded only on 31.1.1998. The Investigating
Officer did not assign any reason as to why so much delay was
+
caused in recording their statements. A panchnama in regard
to the scene of offence was conducted. PW6 was admittedly
H not present at that time. The statements of PW3 and PW6 were
STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH v. S. SWARNALATHA 299
& ORS. [S.B. SINHA, J.]
recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure A
... 'r much before their recording of their statements under section
161 thereof.

In Ganesh Bhavan Patel & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra
[(1978) 4 SCC 371), this Court held :
( B
-4
"All the infirmities and flaws pointed out by the trial Court
-I ' assumed importance, when considered in the light of the
all-pervading circumstance that there was inordinate delay
~+ in recording Ravji's statement (on the basis of which the
"F.l.R." was registered) and further delay in recording the c
statements of Welji, Pramila and Kuvarbai. This
circumstance, looming large in the background, inevitably
leads to the conclusion, that the prosecution story was
•
•
(
conceived and constructed after a good deal of deliberation
and delay in a shady setting, highly redolent of doubt and D
suspicion."
}
.,,,
14. The prosecution furthermore did not assign any motive
for commission of the offence. According to PW1, the accused
No.1 wanted to live separately to which the deceased did not
E
agree. However, in his deposition before the Court, PW6 stated
that she had been subjected to harassment by the deceased.

15. The trial Court itself has acquitted all the accused from
¥
the charges under Section 1208, 392 and 201 of the Indian
Penal Code, but so far as the charge of murder is concerned, F
it was held that the prosecution case must be held to have been
proved by PW3 and PW6.

~·
We are of the opinion that the said findings are not correct.
G
We have found hereinbefore that PW3 and PW6 are not
i trustworthy, and, thus, the impugned judgment cannot be
interfered with.

There is another aspect of the matter which also cannot
be lost sight of. The High Court has recorded a judgment of H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 12 S.C.R.

A acquittal. The judgment of the High Court is a well reasoned
one. The view taken by the Hi~Jh Court is a plausible one. It is
now well known that if two views are possible, this Court would
'(
-
not ·Interfere with a judgment of acquittal in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
.._
8 '
In State of Punjab vs. Sohan Singh [(2009) 8 SCALE
260], this Court held:

"The view taken by the Hinh Court, therefore, in our opinion,
was a plausible view. It is now well settled that if two views ....
c are possible, this court, ordinarily, in exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
would not interfere with the judgment of the High Court. {
See John K. John v. Tom Varghese, [ (2007) 12 SCC
714) and State of Punjab v. Gurnam Kaur and others,
D [2009 (4) SCALE 343 ] }"
~
16. The appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
"
R.P Appeals dismissed.