AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.T. Thomas, R.P. Sethi and S.N. Variava, JJ.—This appeal is by the State in challenge of an order by reversing an order of conviction passed on the Respondent - M. Yellappa, for the offence u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent is alleged to have murdered his wife by breaking the skull with a grinding stone.
The trial court convicted him, entirely basing on the first information statement lodged by the Respondent himself. The High Court has eschewed that statement from evidence as it contains only the confessional statement made by the accused. As the High Court did not come across any other material, not even a circumstance incriminating the Respondent, the High Court was forced to set aside the conviction and sentence and acquitted the Respondent.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned standing counsel for the State of Karnataka made an attempt to vivisect the inculcator portion from the exculpatory part contained in the First Information Statement allegedly made by the Respondent, in order to build up a case against the Respondent. But the statement contained in the F.I.R. is a narration starting with one sentence and followed by the others. It is an extremely difficult exercise to pick out the admissible portion from the F.I.R. after spurning down the inadmissible portions there from. Law on that point has been laid down by a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, , as under:
If a statement contains an admission of an offence, not only that admission but also every other admission of an incriminating fact contained in the statement, is part of the confession. Little substance and content would be left in Sections 24, 25 and 26 if proof of admissions of incriminating facts in a confessional statement is permitted.
We scanned through the evidence laid down by the prosecution to find out whether there is any legally admissible evidence pointing to any incriminating circumstances against the Respondent but that exercise was in vain as none could be found out. Nor could Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde ferret out a single circumstance for that purpose.
In the aforesaid situation, we have no alternative except to confirm the order of acquittal passed by the High Court.
Appeal is dismissed.