H|GH_COVRTOF_CHHATTjSGARMAT_8|:LAS.PUR Criminai Appeai No.389 of 2885 DiVISgQN_BENCH: Coram: HON'BLE MRJ.P.SHARMA & HON'BLE MR.R.LJHA^WAR, JJ. APPELLANT (in Jail) RESPONDENT Sukhman @ Sukman, S/o BhiRmm Gond, age 32 years, R/o VISIage Jadamudapara Pollce Station- Dhanoura, P.S. Deobhog Dlstrict Ralpur, C.G. Versus State of Chhattlsgarh, through P.S. Deobhog (CRMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973) Ms Nirupama Bajpal, co.unsel for the appeiiant. Mrs.Madhu Njsha Singh, Pane! Lawyer for the State/respondent. • (Passedon13tAprii,2011) T.P.Sharma, J.:~ 1. Chailenge in thls sppeal Is to the judgment of convlction & order of ssntence dated 9.3.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raipur In Sessions Trial No.319/2004, whereby & whereunder ieamed Sesslons Judgs after holdjng the appeilant guiity for commlsslon of cuipabie homjcide amountlng to murder of Ralwatibal convicted him under Section 302 of the i.P.C. and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for iife and fine of Rs.1000/-, In default of payment of flne to further undergo R.l. for one month. 2. Convlctlon Is impugned on the ground that without there faeing any lc^a of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appeitant es aforementsoned and thereby commltted iiiegality. 3. As per case of prosecutlon, on the fatefui day of 24.8.2004 atabout 11 a.m. wlfe of the appeilant Raiwstibal was vrorking in th@ field, appeliant chopped her neck by axe and took chopped head in his house and kept \ the same in bucket. He made extra judldai confession before Mandhar iVSanzhl (PW-1) and Laxman (PW-2). Laxman (PW-2) went to Poiice Ststion and iodged the F.i.R. vlde Ex.P/9. Merg was recorded vlde Ex.P/14. investigating officer proceeded for scene of occurrence and after summoning the wltnesses vide Ex.P/1 inquest over dead body of deceased Ralwatibai Vv'as prepared vide Ex.P/2. The appeliant was detained by the viliagers, he was interrogated, he made disdosure statement of bloodstained axe and chopped head of his wife vide Ex.P/5. Same was recovered at thelnstance of appeliant vide Ex.P/6. Bloodstalned axe was recovered at the instance of the appellant vjde' Ex.P/7. BEoodstained fungi of ths appellant was recovered vkte Ex.P/8. Spot map was prepared by Investlgating officer vlde Ex.P/4. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Government Hospital, Deobhog vld@ Ex.P/15 where Dr.VJjay Usendi (PW-4) conducted autopsy vlde Ex.P/11 and found foliowing injuries, (i) Head of the deceased was chopped and separated from trunk. (il) incised wound of 3" iength and skull deep found over right occlpitaS region. Cause of death was excessive heamorrhage. Seated cioth of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P/17. Selzed articies Vi/ere sent for chemlcal examlnatson. 4.8tatements of the witnesses were recorded under Sectlon 161 of the Code of Criminai Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Code') and after compietlon of investlgatlon charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate Flrst CEass, Gariyaband, who in turn, commltted the case to the Court of Sesslons, Ralpur. 5. In order to prove the gui!t of the accused/'appeilant, prosecution has examlned as many as five witnesses. Accused/appeSiant was examined under Section 313 of the Code Vv'here he denied the circumstances appearsng against him and claimed innocence and faise impljcation In crimein question. 6. After affording an opportunity of hearlng to the parties, Searned Sesslons Judge, Raipur convicted and sentenced the appeSiant as aforementloned. 7. We have heard iearned counsei for the parties, perused the judgment Impugned and record of the triai Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appeliant vehemently agued that factum of extra judiciat confessjon made by the appeilant before iviandhar JVIariZhi (PW-1) and S-axman (PW-2) does not appear to be natural and reasonabte. Factum of chopplng of necR and keeping the same in bucket In his house itself appsar to be unnaturai and does not inspire confidence and trustworthy. Even otherwise prosecution has not sstabSished the motjve for commission of offence. 9. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the appeai and argued that this is a brutal murder of wlfe of the appeilant by appettant himseif and the trsaE Court has rightiy convlcted and sentenced the appeiiant as aforementioned. 10.in order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have exam'ined the evidence availabie on record. 11.in the present case, homjcidal death as a result of chopplng of headand separaiion ofthe same from trunk has not been substantiatSy disputed on behaif ofthe appeiiant, even otherwise, It is estabiished bythe evidence of Dr.Vijay Usendi (PVV-4) and autopsy report Ex.P/11. Death of Raiwstibai was homicidaj in nature. 12.As regards the compiicity of the accused/appellant in crime In questJon, convlction is based on ths evidence of extra judiciai confession made by theappeilant before Mandhar Manzhi (PW-1) and Laxman (PW-2). As per evidence of Mandhar Manzhi (PVV-1) and Laxman (PW-2), they were informed that the appeilant has chopped the neck of hte wife Raiwatibai, then they mshed to the house of the appellant where ftie appellant present. Being asked, the appeitant made extra judiclai confesston before them that he has chopped neck of his wlfe Raiv/ati and has brought the chopped head of hls wife in his house and has kept the ©amein bucket. He aSso took out the chopped head of hte wife from bucket whsch these witnesses had seen. Thereafter, vitlagers detained the appellant and thereafter, Laxman (PW-2) went to the Poilce Station for iodglng report. Mandhar Manzhi (PW-1) has ateo deposed in his evidence that the 4 appeilant has made disclosure statement of head of hls wifesnd axe vide Ex.P/5 and same has been recovered vlde Exs.P/6 and P/7. Defence has cross-examined these witnesses at iength but has not been sbte to ejlclt anything in their cross-examinatjon to discrsdit their testimony. Their evjdence are corroborated by promptly iodged F.i.R. vide Ex.P/9 and merg vlde Ex.P/14. Same is also corroborated by recovery of chop from the house of the sppeiiant from bucket snd chopped trunk which was ly'sng in the fieid. These evldence are suffteient to establish the fact the present appelEant has caused homicida! death of hls wlfe Raiwatibal by chopping hsr neck. 13.Whi!e dealing wtth question of evidentiary vaiue of e^ra-judiGial confessSon made under Sectlon 24 of the Evidsnce Act, the Supreme Court in the matter of Baidev Singh v. State of Punjab1 has heid that exlra-judiciai confession is a weak type of evidence. No cortvsction ordinariSy can be based soiejy thereupon uniess same is corroborated in materiaS particuiars. 14.Whiie deaiing wjth the same question, the Apex Court In the matter of ^ohd. Azad @ Samln v. State ofWest BengaS2 has heid that If extra- judldai confession made voiuntariiy and truth In a fit state of mind then It can be reiied upon and confession wili nave to prove Itke in any other evidence. Para 22 of the said judgment reads as under:- "22. An extra-judteiai confesslon, if voiuntary and true and made in a fit state of mind, can be re!Eed upon by the court. The confession wlSi have to be proved ilke any other fact. The vaSue of the evidsnce as to confession, ilke any other evldence, depends upon the veracsty of tne witness to whom it has bsen made. The vsSue of th6 evidence as to the confession depends on the reijablilty of the witness who gives the evidence. It is not open to any court to start with a presumption that extra-judfolai confession is a weak type of evidence. It wouSd depend on ihe nature of the circumstances, the tsme when the confession was made and the credibSSity of the witnesses who speaR to such a confession. Such a confession can be reiiedupon the conviction can be founded thereon if the evidence about the confession comes from the nnouth of wltnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely jnimlcai to She accused, and 1n respect of whom 12009 AIR SCW 3730 22009 AIK SCW 752 "fe. i '^. l^QS^y'f "'^ ^' ••:i^,/ L—. nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he . may have a motsve of attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unamblguous and unmistakabSy convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothlng ss omitted by the witness which may mlSitateagalnst it After subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibSHty, the extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basss of conviction sf it passes the test of credJblSity" 15.As regards the question of motive, in case of direct evidence motive iosses its importance, even otherwise, motive only alds in crlmtnaljty and can be inferredon the basis of nature of injury, kind ofweapon used, part of the body effected and other simiiarcircumstances. 16. in the present case, extra judicial confession made by the appetiant before the aforesaid witnesses appears to betrue, inspires confldence and trustworthy. Even the same is sufficient for arrivlng at a findtng that the appeiiant has made true and voiuntarily extra judidai confession to the aforesaid wltnesses. 17.As per case of prosecution, the appeiiant has chopped the neck of hls wlfe and brought chopped head from the fieid to hls house and has kept the same jn bucket shows his grave intention and brutaS act and same is sufficient for drawing inference that the appeiSant has caused homicidat death of his wife with intent to cause hls death. tS.After appredating the evidence avaiSabie on record, leaned Sesslons Judge has convicted and sentenced the appeilant as aforementioned. 19.0n ciose scrutlny, we do not find any iiiegaiity in convlction and sentenoe jmposed upon the appeifant. 20.Consequentiy, the appeai belng devoid of merit is iiable to be dismissed and st ts hereby djsmlssed. Sd/- Sd/- i i R-L.Jhanwar TP.Sharma 1 Judge Judge ! — B/-