Bai'!'ii![ »8?rR ill);' !il« 1 ^!. l:fl CT1 l."l 1-<1 HlGHCOURTOFCI-IMAmSGARH:Bll.ASPtlR DIVISIONBEN©H: HON'BLtSHRIT.P.SHARWlXANEt HON'BLesHRIR.N.GHANDRAKAR.JJ. Criminal^ARpeal;No.230/2005 APRELLANT lilljaill DHan Singh, S/o Maheshram, Aged About 35 years, R/o^Viltege -tlamehua, BaFkcinha,,. PQlice . Siation-Kartala^ District - Korba (Chhattisgarh) :'^- ••••••-\' :'...':.'•••' '• '• . ••; ' • - '. '•: •".,. ;• •'• •• '. ....' v^sus"'":': .; ::'<:^':111';-11::^:.'1.";,,1,',:^^ RHSRONDENT^ OThe' Stafe of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station--^<aFtala; Ejstrict- KoFba (Chhattisgarh) ' \ : CRIMINALARI:iEALUNDEffSEG^ION374(2lORTHi PROCEDURECODE .AppeaFance:;: /. 'y :,^, ^;.',.''. 1^-,,":.:;,';.,' ^' . :^ '':•:.",:. ^ •.;1 •• Itflr. Pyshpendra Kumar Patej, counsel for theappellant. ';SHl-i^shishShUk]a,(3.A;fortheState. ^ ^•¥,;©Mi.g^UD©IWeRl'I' -y^. - .: • 1 ?.1 i^ '1 '.••^: .: ^ ^l>a^a^!-i^5 ia:'f0): PerT.R.Sharma.iJ. Challenge in tKis^pp^l istQth&judgmenfoftonviction^^^ crfsentencedated 17.01.2005 Rassedmbythe^A^ Judge,KbrbainS.T.No? 84/200^ whereby'anelwhereunderafferholding the appellant guilty for Gonimission of culpable homicide amounting t6 murder of Harihar Singh/fhe Court below GQnviGted ttte"appellarit Uncter Sectio 302 ofth& ly.G. sentenced himtoimprisonmentforlifewithfi^ OfRs.5QQ/-andindefaulttougaergafu[ther6months;R.I^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^.^ 2. The cdnvictionis imRugnedon the^ground thjatwithQ^^ evidenc6f the Cpurt below CQnyictedv^and sentenced the igippellant •as aforemeiTtionedanclithereby.cornmittecliHegal^ . ,^ ^ - t ^.! 3. As perthe^^^ra atjaboutlQ.OQ p.m;,^g.app^an1pcaused^fatal?injyry^to burning piece QfwoDd^antti^used hj^deSth in his hoyse and tlro he 9ragged the-dead toody 'oflHaFillatfrdmhishouse^^^to^^^^^ WM §» vswii •i:i i il!f: s'S'S'l''s: m IfW^ I ^f 1 1 ! ] Hanhar. Injured dead body was seen by vHlagers. Pan^^ wasconvened on ttiebasjs ofdragging rriarks fromthehouseofappellant ypto the house of Harjhar. The? appellant was interrdgated by the memberspf PancMayat, before whom thg appellant made^^ c@nfession that he tias killed Harihar. Thereafter, Deo Singh P.W.1; Jbrother of the deceasea arid brottTer jn law of the appellant went.to Police Statkin and lodg^ FJX yide Ex.P.1. vMel^ \«ras also recqnJed^^b^ yide Ex.P.2. Investigating Officer teft the scene 6f occurrence ana ^fter summoning the wjtnesses Yietetpx,P,3 and Ex.P;6, inquest over thejdead :'":l,3fc-..'"'...^...'.'..'. •;''-.'.';':'r':~,f'.:'..''::l::':.:-.;..:..< body was prepai^ ^ide Ex.R^ in wBich- it has bee^^^^^m^ dragging marksjftpm the house qf^ a^ deceased werelfo!anci at:tKe;Ume (^mquest. BlQod^ined and p were recoveredfromthespQttifcourtyardpftheappellant^v also from the house of the'deceased Harihar vide Ex.P.10. Dead hody was sent to Governmentt-lospital, Rampur vide Ex.R1.22. P.W.15 Dr. Sharad Anant conclucted autopsy vide Ex.R.26 and found the followirig •injunes: ;,',.,.,^ ^'. ;'.,;••'::•:.,.^ : . :; .: . .! :•;',-.: ,1.;:::^:1' ^- s ;:1. . ' ;Lacsrat^.v(round^ ;paM^R@^eaB.;I^^,'':^^W!;'^.,'^ : :^^lt.^g}.::|aegi|ateff|ti^ ^one'.xfgpth^ovsr.mid. ,, • ••'l''^.:'^?':^£'if^ta^^i®ni.3;%^ ,' ; .''.;':'3. %^.i©ne;|swB|linGi^jF!JuryK^R^?^^^ ;^,^4;^, . ^Swoll^ffi^un^:6^'^c^ 5. FractuFg (^ left fourth ri& waS fouhd over ar^ro1!^ •••'•^:'...'.aspeiit;"1' "' :,. 1:' /.! .,':;,•: ;. ^ .. /:.;.1''..:..;'.,::'.:•.';' f 6. Leftilyng was;found lacerated by 2 x 2 cm. Blood w^ 'foundinsideperitoneum. ' ., , Mode of death was shoek and death was homicidal v\ nature..:,..' ;1: -: ! , ,.: ;1~ :.. • •• '. • •:: ' '•..'•..• •: 1 ::. During the investjgatipR, acc^ed was taken into cusfody^^^^^^^H madediscl6surestatemento1^rmngpiecepfWooctvi<feBc.P.^ \^s tecovered at the mstani^ ^ the^a^ Bloodstained shjrt and lungi c^^he^apRellant. Segl^ deceased were isealed; vide BfcFSIS* ^Spot map^^^^ Ex.P.Zf. Patwan pre^recl.ispc^mg^vide EK.P.13.^Seiz^ sentfQrcheffliGal^xammati0haBdpiBse[Treofbloodonlyngi,sh^ appellant ancl burning^ece:of wac)d, blooastained ahd plain soil see^ - ..'i ^•^''' a!>,ti n-; frem the courtyard of the appellant's house and the house bf deceased was'confirmed.'1'" •. . ;;,': -'' 1\, : :1'; . " ''.: ,: 1:1' ' :., :~'.1 \1^'.1:'' :'1.'1'. • ' .. ::": ;..1 • " /1;" .1: 4. Statements of e witnesses were recorded under Section 313 6f the Criminal Procedyre Code CforsMort'the Code'). After completion pf inye^igatiQn, charge sheefwas filgd before the J.M^F^ Korba, wMo^ i ti.irn^cQmmittedthe.caseto-theSessionsJudge.Bilaspur.Theleamed Additional SessidnsreceivedtHe case ontrarisfer for its trial. 5. In orderto pr6vetheguil^rf eaccused,theprosecutionexamined asmany as15witnesses. The aecused wasexarriined under Section 313 ctflhe CnP.G.,iTi ^ich he,iC)gnj^d;^he?ciro^ hmiandpleadecthi^innoGence:and^lsemiplieatipninGrim®iriguesU 6. ^ ASter affording an opportunity^ and hearing of tfe parties,^ ^ learnedAdditiQnalSessiohsJudgecpnviptedandsentencedtheappellant as'aforementioned. \ ' , . ^ :, ; .. , - : . 7. A Mr. PushpendraKumapRatel,lga^^^ iMrg^hish Shukla, ©.A.ff<3r ItT&StEjte^are jrfTpugn®cl;and'recQKl^of1:tT®;<3^i1,ib§!o%ReF^ '- ,', : .' • •8.^^L^med^^UBse!^^rj^Ke¥%ppant£ eanyjctiBri iStSubsfantially^&^dSfflT^CiXtiajydiciai^^e^ appellarit before^P.W.1 [^^inghsand P.W.^ Vishvranath, who "^hs^ not supported the factum of extra judioial cenfession/ Extrajydieial^rifessionjslaweak^peofeyNsncedn^^ safetOrelywithoytfurthercorroborationfromindependent'soure^^^ ,present case, appellant has made alleged confessicin before the Panchayat butexcepttag PW1 Deo^Siiigh, othermernbers ofPanchayat have notsuppQrted. In tlrcse cireumstanGes, Gonvictjon ofithe appellarrt for heinous offerice bfmurdei^^not safe upbri^t^ P.W.1 DeQ gingh, relative of the deceased. ^ 9. , On the^ other h^nd^^leamed ;ccwnset fbr 'the^ 6p|3osed the appea^ and sufemitted that conviction^^^^^ '^•3.; '•.^-^^/..•'^....:1':'.^ lTOensubstantial|yb^ed(m.tl@evidenGeofP.W^1D^ Beer Sirigh andas well c&rrobQrated b')feother5jrcumstances like dragging marks pfthedead bbdy^fromttte houseofthe aRpgIlant^ 1.^ Bl Btl ^^!i.^^^^ Bijr sfe -IUiU ^""IN; S.&BBi' the defceased and presence of blood in the hpuse of the appellanCand house of the deceased. If these eircumstances are cBnsidered tbgether, then it is sufficient for conviction pf the appellant lor Gommission of culpahle homiaae amourrting^^^^^^^to t6 Marihar Singh. After appreciatirigtheevidehceavailable.onreGprd.theCQUrtbelpwhasrightly canvicted ahd^ntenGedthsappellantas,aforementioned^^ 10. l order to appreciate the argyments advanced by fhe parties, we hay&examiried theevidenee addyced on behalfofthe pr'osecution. Ihthe pFesentcase,homiGidaldeatheff|SedeceasedasareSultoffatalinj^ found over thg body pf the deceased Harihar Singh^has.no^ sitbstantially;disputed;;Bn^behalf*(^^he'appe|lant, Dn^the crther hahd ^ esfablished by th& evidence ctf PW.15 Dr. Sharad A^ report Ex.P.26 and death was homicidal in nature. - 12;:Asregardsthecomplicitypf1heappellantinerfm^ [eQnvicticm iSsubsfantiallytbased ontMe extrajydicial c&nfe^ %g .appellant t6 P.W.1; Deo Sing^ROT.2^B^r Sin^ ;\<i§l'wvan8th. In the li@tit'^»pai^ia^igaridSR ^F>^6|^shwraFiathETeiatiBg|||lextra||aai|j!a1^?G^^ ^.reg8rc^^U||®»ia|ri^|^®iB||E^8a§ina|g||^K@eo^ brotheR'Gifat^fde(;ea^d':a|yigl^eHn|av^of'thgiapBel|anf, has' deposed intiis!eyidencestti^h?^s|ii^rm^sl3Y'Ki&&n^h^ his ahOtMer brother MarihaFSmg has;beenmurdered^^ andhewenttotherewherehesawthatdraggihgmarkSQfthedeadfc fFBm th& house of ^he appellant to tHe house of the deceased and the injured dead body was lying intlie house of the cleceasecl^therefore, he Gollected informaticmfrpmthe^perepnsanatHe.appellantwasGalleg^yith&^^ members of Panchayatand was jrrteiTdgated by the;Panchayatin whieh the apRellant was asked as t6 wlro has killed; Harihar Singh, ttien he made e>dra Judjcial Gonfession that h^/^s KiUed MariharSing&. ^ appellant was intei-rogated, hei has not stated anytfiing relatjng to wsaporr and time, Thereafler^thiSwitnesswetMtopoliGestatibn^a^ repQrtvideEx.P,1andmeigwasrec6nledvidjeEx.P;2.HisbrotherP.W BeerSinghhasnotsupport^ithiecaseofpFosecutionatthefirstinstance •t.'ft.^.n:K.''i'''' :.' -\.: .-: ''^ ' •.':' but during cross-examinatioril liy^he^pFQsefiutiQn, in paragraph 2,?he^h^ specifically statedthattHea^eIlahtSmaa^extrajudi^ the Sai a (meeting) that h& has murdered^arihar Singh/;v tl:l Staf^^fo^polroe in^hisstatement^nd in^his detailedi crQss^amin especially in paragisph 5tie;has;deniedtlTOSyggestiQnthat;theap^ has notiriade anyextrajydicialcanfessiQnbeforehim.^The^e^ als6(;ross-examj dPW.^BeoSinghatlengthbuttiasnbtbeen^ e|icit anything in ;his (^ Defirately;POT.1DebSinghandRW.2Bee^Singha^ SinghSut beth^thewitnessesarealsoFelativesyi.e.brothe^in- .appellant.^':''•„., , ,:,/' ,."1"^';';'::. ."• ,' :'1: ;'':,:, '.' i. :. 11': '." 13^ :Qrdinarily; a elose; rel^re Mrouia b& the lasttosc^ Gulprjiand falsely impliG^e art innoc^t peraon. While dealing^^^w question oKeyiaentiary v^iys'sf'th^'reigiti^ the matterofDa|ip;Singfrand()itnersw.TheStateo^^ SC 364^has held1hatawitnessisnormallytoheconsideredindepen3 unfesshebrshespringsSGmspurees^ichareliKelyW^ 266ftliesaidjudgmentreadsasuric)er;- "26. yA ^itness^^is'^^nQi^atly^to^be'Bonsjder^ ;'ihde^ndentiynless:hei;a^sh&sp:nngs:fn3 S(^FC^ •whj^jare^ UI<el^tt^be!^|tg|ffied:|and^|T^'ysuljj|y:fnean&:^ . : ::,^ :];^:unle|s^tHes3^ggi|^a^gGgjjse|5;^ui;:h?;|i^ .-&^'.,^'''":I^S9llJ@tBN8lili§EIiI^| gwi9^ •':•• ! ^:'&-y^ ^:-'g®;©^iF^fl:l^|a|JG!isgg^|giS ^^^ s::i^SA^'%::s§^Fisi|^h^gr^;|Mii3||iij^ l'§^^^,::.'fi'^%ifln]B®^lp8Rcm:^^^^^ ^.^^:.^A.%¥.^:%antM(1Sre:^Pi^^H8l^^3^ :^^.^^: ;!,:^''"s;.ar>1snaenc%^o:,^ra^.jffi^^ whoffl^; ^itnes^as-a^grudge^along'with^he gyilty^- ; , but foundafiQn must'beyaid forsucK a^^^ Vw rnere faet^^^^^^^^^^ .foundatibn, is./often '^':'^rei;iguaranteei o^ However,^ ^we^.are ^nBt^atfsrnpting&any.jsweeping ^ ^ generalizatiQn.S^acM^case,myst ^ own^'faots.K Our^ot^i^tionSi.rare''^ " : :^ . ;: 'combaf.whatis/saGftero.BUfcforvvgWwfiaS^ :::^ . us^as a general aili?;pfcprUden^^~Eliere^^@suc ^^eF^Fafemle.^'Eac^as&i^iriyst^limitey'taand^te^^ .^gQ^rhed'byit&::ot<g:faets^' '::;'1'- /•::'''- While.dealing?witH'tneisame^tiestior^ttre:^ex^OMFt^^ ofAshc^KumarGKaudHary^&C^.v.StateofN 373ahas:held;'thus,?:[^':';-s;';:^|/.,:.^-,.;'.%:::"^'^^ ;.^:'^'1''1;''':':^; ^::'';--;'"^^'?'^e^eBal® ,:'univereal;app;tiG^icHi^hat^;ncsn^xaminafi(m^ :', •::;;Rufci|icl:.witn^s|.»B^itse|CTiyes^nse'^ :l?..:.''';'^.inference^,ag^nstK^t^3!pr^s^ ^-:,''lestiiTlpny.,^t.a3:r^atiV6"|||ofr;:;thK^viWm,.f^ otherwise i^dit^ar^y, ^eanrot be^ '/-" iEffiiitl:iil: :r !^IS it 't!i: M unlesSGorroboratedtiypubliGwitnesses.lnscifaras thequestionofcredit-worthinessoftheevidenGeof relativ^ -of^ ^ictim js?cQ]neei-ned, it is well settled tlTough the GOurtjhas to scrytinize sych eyidence with greater care and caution but such^eviderice cannot I:®discai^d'on the sole groyhd\of ffieiF interest in the ^rosesytion, The relatipnship perse does. not affeet.the ,crediBilit!(f of a witriess. Merely because awitsess hap^ng&to be a relativg of the yicAim^pftheGnme;he/she\<annottiesharaeteFizetf?. as an "interested";witness. .It is/trife ffiaflhe term; • ''intereSted" pcstulates^^hat the person conceFned ; hassQm&direGtorigclirectinteFestinseeing.thatthe acci.lsed is somehigvv or the other convicted either -beGaifee he had somg anirrtus with the aCGusedOr ft)r.some gtherBBlic(ue motive." . , , :. .»:.'.'- ' ".'^•".: ^:;-:;:.•:'."••'•^';^'";'-.'^:.-:;''-:.';".'':" • •'^.".;'.":'•••'••'' . •;-'' '";.•.•'•..•.'.'••-.'::.....:•::''••;- - ;. 14. The evi3ence^e>ctrsjudicialc^ relative witnegs^s if eorisidered to tie 1:rue, the same can tse -basis of conviction. Extra juciicial confession, jf provecl, is suffiGientfor^d the'definiteinference. Whileldealing wjth the question;^^ confession, theApex Court irt the^matter of Ba/cfey S^ ^iyafc, 200aAIRSCW 37M has Meld that e)drajtidiaalCQnf^ g^eral Qfweak typeBfeyidence.No^OT^ s6)e1y:lheFeup6n ynless?same^sijGorroBorafed aa^ m While^dealmc|?N'ittT;;the'sarr^flUesticm^Be^^p^^^^ Moftd.Azaff@Sammv.S^(eofM^^Bengat^009AI held that if extra judKSiai cpnfessjon macte voluritarily and truth in'a fit state QfmindthenitcanberelfeduponanyconfessionwillhavetdprQvelike^^i^^ ariyotherevidenee:Para22'Qfthesaiidjudgmentreadsasunder:- ; ^Z/Anextra^udicialconfession/ifvoluntaryandtru&andmaclearid - made in;a fltstateof m confession yvill have to beRroved likeany otherfac^iThe^ the evidence^as^to confessjon, like^any other ey^ upon the veracity offhe^itne^ to whom vslue ofWe evidenGeastotheconf^ssiortdependttonthS^^^^ ofthewitnesswhpgiyesth&eyidence. Itis nQtopentoanyceui-tto ' ^'startwith aRresyraption(tha^exti^udiCTa crf^videhce., It would depenclroh e nature gf the ciroumstarices,^^^^^ the time when the eonfession was made and^ .wjtnesseswho|speaKto|Sychasonfession.Such^a^n^ . ^ 'be relied ypQntheeorwictioncaniMlQun ; about the corifession cornea ftom "Ihe mQyth Qf?wi(hesses ^vlio ^ ^' ^ppearto^be unbjased^flot^ /^ ^ i;ancl jn respe(^[^ whorns^hil'ig'j^laroughto^ ,^ Y^^indicate'that^tie may,fch ^ )^ statemenftathe aGCBS^d,:t^ .; .;?Clgar^ynamBigupus al^^unnii^^ & e perpeti^or crf^He crirn^ a^ e,, "^' EEi'L' !i!S »S:1 ^:i.^.|; SIJI'II "i.n'i: a'i/!': !t iilt: tl ^;i:':.^ ^tll:' •:' il ^* r.' l;- :S£BS^aK SWVs'w which may militeite against it. After subjecting the evidence Qf the ^witnesstoarigproystestonttielsuchsfoneofcredibilitY.theextra- ^ judicial confession^Can be siceepted and can be the basis af cdnviction if it passes the test Of Gredibility". 15. In the present case, the extra judicia] confession made tiy the appellaht befbre the P.W.1 Deo S(ngh lias been corroborated by P.W.2 BeerStngh and inspires Gonfidence, trtistwprthy ahd i&suffisieht tQ place reljanc®. Even dtherwise, as per evidence P.W.1 Deo Singli, he went td th& place where he saw the dFagging marks from the house of the appellarYttothehpuseoftheel^ceasedandolothscrfinjured^^^^d^ :.';>Btl;,-','. •.••..':'. ;.'.';''-.'^':'':lc;':','':: was seized vide Ex.P.8. Btoodstsfined ancf plain Soils were also recoverea ^from We courtyard trf ffi6 appellant and atso from the tiouse deceased vide Ex.P.10. Glpths of fhe appellarif have been seized vide Ex.P.9. All these articles were sent for chemical examination and presence ofblood recovered from the house of the appellant and hpyse pf th& deceased, on cloths of the appellant has been Gonfirmed by F.S.L. ^RaiiSur vide Ex.P.26, This shows that t)16od was foynd^n the Cloths of the appeliant ai^ alsOvSOils seized fi^ ^aRgellahf^si rK3t offeF^ar^^x^n^ hi& eloths .and 'sbil ot •eQtirtyareliM/ere^ufiiassSin^vMt^gll^:.^ explan^offthsitlwline'^Fa^ii^tlie^^dbo^ SinghfrorahishpusetofhehouseGfMariharSinghthattoointhenight^ abdut 10.00 p.m. whicll are also.corroborative piece of evidence to support the factum Qfextra judicial eohfession. 16. . After appreciating the evidence, the learned Additional Sessions Judgecpnvtotedtheappellanlfasaforementioned. 17. On close scrutiny ofthe^eyidence availabte on record, we'do riot find,any illegalit^ in?cQnvicti8n andsentence of the appellant. 18 Cbnsequently,^he^app^ being dewid^^^rf^ herebydismissed; Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judss