Observing that trial courts cannot base their conviction on a confession which was inadmissible, the Telangana High Court had acquitted yet another person who was awarded life imprisonment in a murder case.
The bench of Justices K. Surender and Anil Kumar Jukanti, setting aside the conviction and life sentence given to an auto-rickshaw driver Wadde Raju, directed the police to set him free immediately. A week ago, the HC had set aside the life imprisonment punishment given to a person from Medak district.
In the present case, the Family Court-cum-VIII Additional Sessions Judge held Raju guilty of murdering a woman Shanthamma and handed him a life-term jail sentence nine years ago. After being lodged in prison, the convict wrote a letter to the HC (through the prison authorities) appealing against the verdict. Responding to his plea, the HC directed the Legal Service Authority to help him represent his case.
The LSA appointed HC advocate Pulimamid Shashidhar Reddy to aid the convict. Challenging the conviction, advocate Shashidhar Reddy contended that barring the confession of the accused and evidence of the investigating officer there was nothing to prove the murder charge against Raju. According to the prosecution, the decomposed body of the victim Shanthamma was found in Appaipally village of Mahbubnagar district on April 28, 2014.
The decomposed condition of the body suggested that she could have died four weeks earlier. The forensic doctor, after performing the autopsy, opined the victim died of the fractures on the skull. Nearly a month later, the investigators arrested Raju accusing him of killing Shanthamma.
They recovered a pair of silver anklets, believed to belong to the victim, from Raju. The accused’s motorbike was also recovered. Based on Raju’s confession and the recovered objects, police filed a chargesheet. The trial court judge found the accused guilty based on the evidence of the police officer and the objects of the victim recovered from the accused.
The bench observed that the trial court heavily relied on the confession of Raju and the ornaments recovered from him. Noting that ‘conviction cannot be recorded based on confession’, the bench said Raju confessed to the crime in the police station in the presence of police personnel. ‘Such confession cannot be accepted as per section 25 of Indian Evidence Act’, the verdict said.
According to the prosecution, the accused admitted that he had murdered some other women and took away their ornaments.
“Conviction in the present case was based on the prosecution case projecting the accused as a serial killer The evidence adduced by the prosecution is highly discrepant, unbelievable and contradictory,” the judgment said.
The only circumstantial evidence presented by police that can be relied on was the victim’s recovered ornaments. However, even “…the seizure was found to be incorrect and apparently fabricated during the investigation,” the verdict said.
