"^ NIGH CQURT GF CHHATTSSC3XRH AT BILASPyR Crlmina! Aisiseal No.1180 of 20Q3 M €oram:HON<BLEIViR.T.P.SHARWiA.'&j HON'BLE iViR.R.L.JHANWAR, JJJ. APPELLANT (inJsil) RESPONDENT Amrit Bai Wfe Sammaf Kenwat Age 32 years, R/o Chakraway P.S, Slmga Distt.Raipur(C.G.) 1 Versiis State ,of: Chhattisgarh; Through .P.3. Simga. i (CRMiNAL APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 374 (2)|OF THE CODE OF CR!!V!NALPROCEDURE,1973) Present:- ' • ! ',:' ! ^' ,: ; 1 11 : ' 1 : ; Mr.Arun Shukla, counsei for the appeliant. l Mr.Arun Sao, Government Advocate for the State. l':1 •^ ^ '>A. (ORAL JUDGR4ENTI |-:: 1..:/ (Passed on 6th December, 201JO) Per T.P.S:harma,:.J..- 1. Challenge in thi% appesl is to the judgment of convlGtion and order of sentence dated 28.8.2Q03 ^assed by 2tld Additionai Sessions Judge, - Baloda Bazaar in Sesslons Trial No.74/03 whereby ieamed 2nd Additional Sesslons Judgs after hoiding the appellant guilty for commlssion of cuipabis homicide of Sammat amoyntsng to murder convicted her under Sectlon 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo impnsonmentfor llfe andto payflne of Rs.500/-, In default of payment of finetofurtherundergoR.i.forthreemonths. 2. Convlction Is challenged on the ground that Vv'lthout there being any iota of evidence, triaj Court has convlcted and ssntenced the appelSant as aforementionedaRdthsrebycommlttediliegaSSty. 3. As per case ;of prosscutlon, on the feteful day of 27.12.2002 at about 12 at nlght appelisnt was sleeping with her husbsnd Sammat (slnce deceassd) in the same room. Qn account 6f her sexuai djssatisfaction from her hysbanci, she tookout axe and caused injury overthe body of -2...' ^3' ^ Sarnmat (sincs deceased) and eaased his instantaneously de^ seeonddaymoFninQ,herfather-Sn-lawcametoknowtheNetan^^^ incident to Kotwar Rewadas (PVV-1) who went!i& poHc^ iodged merg intimation vide Ex.P^ anci FJ.R.^^^^P^ aftersummoning the witnessesyide Ex.P/3 prepared inciuest over -bQdYI'of.'Sammatl,¥Jde:,Ex.PM;.^.^ bloodsta{ned'ciotheswer6:sejzsd;Wm:'the,spotv|je.;Ex.P^ was .sent :.fbr.;sutopsyllto';<3oYemment;::;::HQ3pi^^ Dr.S.R.Ghoudhary (PW-6) conducted autopsy over dead body of deceased Sammat vide Ex.P/15 and found following Injyries: ':(i),:'l1ndsed,woundllof 24 cm.In leftslde^ • , (ii):::,:lnci^d'woynd.of:8:cm./jength.::jn.1eft:sid8^^^^^ iryuReswereante-mortem.Gausepfdsath^asshGcR.DunngthecQ^ ofinveStigation,appeSSantwast8kenintoGUStody,shem statement of axe vide Ex.P/6 and same was recovered at her inst^nce vids Ex.P/7. Spot map was prspared by snvestigatlng officer vide Ex.P/11. Seized articles were sent ft?r chemlcat examjnatl€?n and presence of biood on axe was confirmed vlds Ex.P/13. Patwari aiso ,prepared'spo(.;maR'vJde'Ex.,P/14..: •:;^':^ .l'.:.:: •.,„' ''' '•i;','...:'/;';1.'. -.•••:1-:' •• '1, :•' 4. Statements ofthejwsthesses ^re recorded under^^^^^^^^^ Gr.P.C. and afterlcompletion 6f investjgation, ciias^e sheet was fited ' before the Court of Judicial Naglstrats First Class, Baioda Bazasr, who iRturncommittedthecasetotheGourtofSe3Sions,Ralpur,fromwhe^^ ie8rned2"dAdditJonatS6ssionsJudge,^iQdaBazaarre6eivedthecase^ on transfer for tnaiJ . -•:,.• ! .'. • : • '. .':•':', . ..'.' '1: ;:.".:/<;, '" : '.-- 5. ip order IQ prove tfte guijty of the aGcused/appeilant^ ^ examined asmanyassixwjtnesses.Statem^^^ was recorded under Section 313 of the Gr.P.G. where she denjed the circumstances Qppeanng agalnst her and pieaded innocenee and faise Implication inthechmeinquestion. . 6. After affofdlr^ an| opportunjt^^f hearing ia ^ ^ddltionaj Sessions vlydge has convict^i and sentenced the appeliant as ll'aforementioned.'::!/. ':.'•.. ' . ',,. ." .y •.1:: .':••:• •'^•\ ^ . 1:1 ^i@I?^ISi?:'^ii;31^11i^ltiiIi i^i^^^;^;®'^^i?^N@^^.i; i^^i^S;aW^ •€-.>: ..^4 ::3-:..; t^. 7. VVe have heard iearned counseE for the partlesi perus^^ impugnedandrecord ofthetrlal Court. H ' 8. , Learned coynse! for appeilant vehemently argyed that In the present case,convsctionissubstantia!!ybasedone)<trajlsdiciajcoFifessionniade byappeS!antbefere!^warRewadas(PVV-1)aneiShjvSlngft^ as perthelr evidenee, she has made e)dra judiciaS confess^ beforepolice,therefore,sameisnotpermJssibSeinevldeRC@,ExGeptthls eyldence, thsre Is no other eviaencs te connect the appeilant In the : crime;-in'qusstiQn.?.':'1 . .!,' :.' 11--': Y: ! '.1'..1.;! ^-4,":1:.; :;'11.1 :1;:,1 •111; .;1. ' 9. On the other hand, iearned Stats counse! sypported the judgmeRt impugned and argyed that conviction is substaRtlalsy baseci on extra judjciai confession macie by appellant before l^ and ShivS!ngh{PW-2)whichinspiresconfidericeand^rustworthy.Same is aiso weli corroborated by dlsclosure stafement of axe stalned with blpod and same js syfficlent for cpnvjction of appeSSant. 10Jn ordsrto appreclstethe ai^uments advancedjon behalf ofthe ps^^ wehaveexamlnedtheevldenceadducedonbe^aifofproseGutlon. ^ '^ '••'•••• ' -'—• 1lJnthepr83er^ca3e,homicidaldeathasaresuStofl^ of Sammat (SiRce deceased) has nc^ been ©ub^ behaSfofappeilant,Gntheotherhand,ateoestab!Jshedbytheevidence of Dr.S.R.Choudhary (PW-S) and;aytoj3syreportEx.P/15whlGhreveals thatdeathwashomteldaliRnature. 12.As regards thej compllcjty of the accused/appeilant in the crime in questlon, in the present case convictlon Is ; subslantlajly based on evidence of KDtwar Rewadas (PW-1) and Shl^ Slngh (i3W-2) whorn appeiiant has msde extrajudiciai confes^ion. As pereyidence o^i^ Rewadas ("W-1), he was mformed by Tather-lR-Saw ofappeHaRt that iits son has been kHSed, he wenttopoSic&stationandiodged^ Ex.P/2, thereaft|r, poilcecameto vfISage.thiswitnessandotherpersons lnterroga(edtheiapp^llantwhom3hemadsextrajudlciai<X5nfessionihat she has kiiled ^er husband. Shiv Singh (FW2) has also dep^ed after iodgingths report ppiJGe cametothe vtliagean^ poiice, they interrogated the appeliant along wsth Kotwar Rewadas 4 y *.-y..4' 3/- (PW-1), then appellant 'nas made extra judlclal confesslon before them. in paras 7 and 8 of his cross-examination, he has further admitted that appellant has made statement before them, eVen to police anyhow. Evidence of this wltness ciearly reveals that; | appellant has made forcefuily extra judlcia! confesslon to Kotwar Rew'adas (PW-1) and hlm either before poiice or at the jnstance/direct§Qn/GpntrGl of poiice, therefore, same is not admisslbie under Sections 25 and 26 ,of the Evldence Act. 13.As regardsthequestion of recovery of axe and presence of blood. as per Ex.P/13 blood upon axe has been confirmed by medicat expert but biood group has not been compared. Thls evldence may be corroborative plece of evidence but cannot be used as substantive piece of evldence for conviction of appelSant only on the basis of presence of biood over axe wlthout blood group. 14.Evldence adduced on behaifof prosecutlon is suffjcientfor causlng grsve suspicloR that appeilant may have committed the offencei but Is nGt suffjcient for drawsng definlte coRclusion that oniy the appeSSant has committed cuipabte hQmicide smountlRg to murder of her husband. 15-WhiSe convicting th^ appeliant under SectloR 302 of the i .P.C,, trial Court has not considsred the aforessld aspect and thereby commltted ijlegaiity. ie.For the foregoing reasons, the appeai is aiiowed. Convictlon and sentence of the appeliant under Sectson 302 of the I.P.C. are hereby set aslde. She be sst at'llberty at once and be released forthvv'lth, if not required in any other case. ^- Sd/- T.P.Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge