HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2001 Ghasi Ram Vs. The State JUDGMENT ^ HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA J ^^^re^-> </ For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Chief Justice Post for Judgment :Zfly08/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. APPiLLANT RESPONDENT Criminal Appeal No. 496 of 2001 Ghasi Ram S/o Pyare Lal, aged about 50 years, resident of village Saktibehra, Belgahna under P.S. Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Versus The State (App^aLynder Section 374 (21 of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: Mr. Ravindra Agarwal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Shukla, Government Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (2.0.08.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) This appeal hasbeen directed against the judgment and order dated 12th ofApril 2001 passed in Sessions Trial No.410/2000 by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a further direction to run the sentences concurrently:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for 6 months. Criminal Appeal No. 496/2001 Under Section 201 IPC R.l. for 3 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for 6 months. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased Sitabai was the wife of the appellant. The allegations are that on 30.07.2000 at about 1:00 p.m., the appellant committed murder of his wife, by throttling, near a dam in village Saktibehra and thereafter, threw her dead body in the dam for causing disappearance of theevidence of said offence. After the incident, he went to the shop of Suresh Bahadur Singh (PW-1) and stated him that he has murdered his wife. He also went to the shop of Sumandas Puri (PW-2) and there also, he stated that he has murdered his wife. Since he was in drunken condition, these persons did not care about the words of the appellant. On the next day, at about 11:00 p.m, the appellant again came to the shop of Suresh Bahadur Singh (PW-1) and stated that he has murdered his wife. On this, Suresh Bahadur Singh (PW-1) took the appellant to the Police Station and lodge the First Information Report Ex.P/1. The Investigating Officer reached to the scene of occurrence and the dead body was taken out by the appellant from the tank. A Panchnama to this effect was prepared under Ex.P/7. Merg was registered under Ex.P/2. ' After giving notice (Ex.-P/24) to the Panchas, inquest (Ex.P/25) was prepared on the body of the deceased. Site plan was prepared under Ex.P/27. The dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem to Primary Health Centre, Belgahna under Ex.P/26, where, the postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Vipin Vaishya (PW-8), who prepared his report Ex.P/9. The Autopsy Surgeon found fractures of hyoid and thyroid bones. He opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result ofthrottling and the death was homicidal in nature. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur, who in \^ Criminal Appeal No. 496/2001 turn committed the matter to the Sessions Court, Bilaspur, from where, it was received on transfer by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. The Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC on 02.12.2000. When it was read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded guilty. However, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, in all his wisdom, decided to proceed with the trial in accordance with law and after completion of the trial, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. (3) Shri Ravindra Agarwal, learned counsel appearing on behalfofthe appellant has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. Moreover, it comes in the evidence of Suresh Bahadur Singh (PW-1) and Sumandas Puri (PW-2) that the appellant made extra judicial confession before them that he had murdered his wife and has thrown the dead body in the tank and the dead body of his wife was recovered at the instance of the appellant from the tank. The Autopsy Surgeon found that there were fractures of hyoid and thyroid bones and he opined that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of throttling and the death was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (4) The conviction of the appellant is based upon the extra judicial confession made before Suresh Bahadur Singh (PW-1) and Sumandas Puri (PW-2). (5) Mr. Ravindra Agarwal, argued that the witnesses of extra judicial confession are not reliable and conviction cannot be based on the testimonies of such witnesses. (6) On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shuka, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalfofthe State opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. -<- ..L- Criminal Appeal No. 496/2001 (7) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the recordsof the Sessions Case. (8) In State of U.P. -vs- M.K. Anthonv (1985) 1 SCC 505. the Apex Court held that "there is neither any rule of law nor of prudence that evidence furnished by extra judicial confession cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by some other credible evidence. The courts have considered the evidence of extra judicial confession a weak piece of evidence. If the evidence about extra judicial confession comes from the mouth of witness/witnesses who appear to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused, and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tend to indicate that he may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime and nothing is omitted by the witness which may militate against it, then after subjecting the evidence of the witness to a rigorous test on the touchstone of credibility if it passes the test, the extra judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of a conviction, in such a situation to go in search of corroboration itself tends to cast a shadow of doubt over the evidence. If the evidence of extra judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproach the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon." (9) In Naravan Sinfih-Vs- State of M.P.. (1985) 4 SCC 26, the Apex Court held that it is not open to any court to start with a presumption that an extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence and it depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made and it is for the ^,^ "^ g \. ^ JJ ^ ^^ Criminal Apneal No. 496/2001 court to decide on the acceptability the evidence having regard to the credibility of the witnesses. (10) In Kavita Vs. State of Tamilnadu. (1998] 6 SCC 108, the Apex Court again reiterated the same principles that there is no doubt that convictions can be based on extra judicial confession but it is well settled that in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence and therefore, it is to be proved just like any other fact and the value thereof depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It may not be necessary that the actual words used by the accused must be given by the witness but it is for the Court to decide on the acceptability of the evidence having regard to the credibility ofthe witnesses. (11) In State of Puniab -Vs- Gurdeep Sinah. 1999 SCC (Cri.) 1368, again the Apex Court emphasized that in the matter of evidence of extra judicial confession, the evidentiary value of the evidence depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it is made and it can be treated as substantive evidence if there is found some assuring material or circumstance and the delay in recording extra judicial confession before a person wholly unconnected with the police is always a matter of great suspect. (12) In Gaaan Kanoiia and another-Vs- State of Puniab. 2007 (2) Crimes 81 (SC). the Apex Court held that the extra judicial confession can form the basis of a conviction and by way of abundant caution, Court may look for some corroboration. (13) Therefore, on the basis of above principles, it is clear that there is no rule of law that the evidence of extra judicial confession cannot be ?-"::-s^ ^^ ^^ .^- Criminal Appeal No. 496/2001 relied on alone and for recording a conviction on such confession, there shoutd be corroboration by some other evidence. On the contrary, if the evidence of extra judicial confession is reliable, trustworthy and is beyond the shadow of doubts, the same can be made the sole foundation for recording conviction of the accused and the Court by way of abundant caution, may look for some corroboration. (14) Now we shall look into the evidence of Suresh Bahadur Singh (PW- 1) and Sumandas Puri (PW-2). Suresh Bahadur Singh (PW-1) deposed that "On the fateful dayat about 3:00 p.m., he was in his shop. The appellant came there from the village side and stated him that he has committed murder. Thereafter, he went to the shop of Sumandas Puri (PW-2). In the next night, he again came to his shop. The appellant called him from his shop and then, he made extra judicial confession before him that he has murdered his wife Sitabai. He also stated that on account of taking money from her, some quarrel took place, on which, firstly, he assaulted her and thereafter, he committed her murder by throttling and threw the dead body in the tank. Sumandas Puri (PW-2) deposed that on Sunday at about 3:00 p.m., he was sitting in his betel shop. The appellant came near the shop of Suresh Bahadur Singh (PW-1) and he was shouting that he has committed murder of his wife. Thereafter, he came to his betel shop. He was in drunken condition. He was saying that he has murdered his wife." These witnesses have been cross-examined at length by the defence, but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance, on which, their versions may be disbelieved or it may be said that they are trying to falsely implicate the appellant in crime in question. The version of Suresh Bahadur Singh (PW-1) is corroborated :.^. '\. l'"':'^/ .!^ Criminal Appeal No. 496/2001 by the contents of the First Information Report (Ex.-P/1), which contains all above details. The same is further corroborated by the Panchnama (Ex.-P/7), which shows that it was the appellant who went inside the tank and took out the dead body of his wife. (15) It nowhere comes in the record that these witnesses were biased or even remotely inimical to the appellant, which may tend to indicate that they may have a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the appellant. The evidence of Suresh Bahadur Singh (PW-1) shows that the version was made before him in clear words and was unambiguous and nothing is omitted by him which may go against his credibility. (16) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and findings recorded by the Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has rightly relied on the extra judicial confession, which was corroborated by the above evidence on record and has rightly found the appellant guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 ofthe IPC. (17) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Chief Jusdce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge shyna