Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme Court

Extra-Judicial Confession Credible and Corroborated by Fingerprint Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court in ATM Murder Case

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The High Court confirms life imprisonment for the accused, emphasizing the reliability of extra-judicial confessions and fingerprint evidence linking the accused to the crime scene.

In a significant judgment, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has upheld the conviction of Kadali Kodandaramu @ Ramu and Velugula Prakash for murder and attempted theft, affirming the trial court’s sentence of life imprisonment and additional rigorous imprisonment. The bench, comprising Justices K. Suresh Reddy and B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi, emphasized the reliability of extra-judicial confessions, the recovery of material objects, and the crucial role of fingerprint evidence in corroborating the presence of the accused at the crime scene.

The case revolves around the brutal murder of Atmakuri Srinivasulu @ Venkata Rao, a security guard at an Axis Bank ATM in Tanuku, and the attempted theft of cash from the ATM on March 10, 2012. The appellants, Kadali Kodandaramu @ Ramu and Velugula Prakash, along with a juvenile accomplice, were found guilty of attacking the deceased and attempting to break into the ATM machine. The trial court convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 380 read with Section 511 IPC, leading to life imprisonment and additional sentences.

Credibility of Extra-Judicial Confession:

The High Court upheld the trial court’s reliance on the extra-judicial confession made by the accused to the Village Revenue Officer, P.W-15. Justice B.V.L.N. Chakravarthi noted, “The confession led to the discovery of incriminating material objects, including blood-stained clothes and weapons, which corroborated the confession and linked the accused to the crime.” The court found no reason to disbelieve the Village Revenue Officer’s testimony, despite arguments from the defense that the officer was a stranger to the accused.

Fingerprint Evidence:

Addressing the collection and comparison of fingerprints, the court held that the police were competent to collect the fingerprints of the accused without a Magistrate’s order. The fingerprints collected from the crime scene matched those of the accused, substantiating their presence at the ATM during the crime. “The fingerprints of the accused, collected by the police, matched the chance prints found at the crime scene, leaving no doubt about their involvement,” the bench observed.

The prosecution’s case was further strengthened by the recovery of material objects, including blood-stained clothes and the weapon used in the murder, based on the confessions made by the accused. The forensic examination confirmed the presence of human blood on these items, corroborating the prosecution’s narrative.

Justice Chakravarthi remarked, “The corroboration provided by the material objects and fingerprint evidence is significant and lends credibility to the prosecution’s case, especially in the face of the extra-judicial confessions.”

The High Court’s judgment underscores the judiciary’s commitment to upholding justice through a thorough examination of all available evidence. By affirming the convictions and sentences, the court has reinforced the legal principles surrounding the reliability of extra-judicial confessions and forensic evidence. This judgment is expected to have a lasting impact on the prosecution of similar cases, emphasizing the importance of corroborative evidence in securing convictions.

 

Date of Decision: July 05, 2024

Kadali Kodandaramu @ Ramu & Velugula Prakash vs. State of Andhra Pradesh

Latest Legal News