With regard to the making of confession by A1, PW.1 has stated that they all went to A1 and asked the whereabouts of her husband and after a quarrel she informed about throwing the dead body of her husband in a well of Baasi Reddy. But whereas PWs.2 and 3 stated that they called A1 and enquired about her husband and PW.4 also stated that they called A1 and enquired the whereabouts of her husband, then she made a confession. But, according to the investigating officer, PW.9, he received the complaint on 23.12.2006 at 8.00 a.m. from PW.1 and registered the case in Cr.No.284 of 2006 under the head of Man Missing and issued FIR. On 24.12.2006, during the course of investigation, he visited the village Mekalaguda Gram Panchayat office. A1 and PWs.2 to 4 were summoned to panchayat office as already a panchayat was going on by the time he went there. A1 confessed the offence in the said panchayat. Therefore, according to the investigating officer, the alleged confession was made in the panchayat but the witnesses PWs.2 to 4 did not speak about the panchayat and A1 making confession in the said panchayat. On the other hand, PWs.2 and 3 have stated to A1 that they would help her and then she made the confession. Therefore, the said confession cannot be said to be voluntary. Further, PW.9, the investigating officer clearly admitted that A1 confessed the offence in the panchayat when he was present there. Thus, since the confession made by A1 in the presence of PW.9, the same is not admissible and cannot be relied upon.
