drp {1} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.575 OF 2009 Ashok Sahebrao Borude APPELLANT Age-30 years, Occ-Service R/o Vatapur, Tq-Newasa Dist-Ahmednagar VERSUS The State of Maharashtra RESPONDENT ....... Mr.K.D.Mote, Advocate for the appellant Mr.N.H.Borade, APP for respondent State ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 21st February 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.V.POTDAR, J.): 1. The appellant has questioned the correctness of his conviction for an offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of Imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- with default stipulation of undergoing further RI for one year, in Sessions Case No.22/2008, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur vide judgment and order dated 18.09.2009. 2. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the trial, is drp {2} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 as under - a) PW-9 API Hibare, attached to Sonai Police station, received a telephone message on 21.02.2008 from the Sarpanch of village Vatapur that the appellant has committed murder of his mother Sakharbai. Accordingly, station diary entry No.3 (Exhibit-33) was taken and PW-9 proceeded to the spot at Vatapur where he noticed that one dead body of a female was lying in a pool of blood. The appellant was present in the house. Statement (Exhibit-13) of Sahebrao (PW-1) was recorded on the spot, which was treated as FIR, on the basis of which offence at Crime No. 21/2008 was registered u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code, against the appellant. b) Thereafter, inquest Panchanama (Exhibit-15) was drawn on the dead body and the dead body was sent to Rural Hospital, Newasa for Postmortem examination. The appellant was put under arrest, vide arrest Panchanama Exhibit-34. Blood stained clothes of the appellant were seized under seizure Panchanama (Exhibit-26). Thereafter spot Panchanama (Exhibit-35) was drawn at two places under the same roof. Blood mixed soil and plain soil was collected from the spots. Broken pieces of glass bangles and blood stained muller was seized from the spot. drp {3} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 c) Postmortem was conducted by the on duty Medical Officer, Rural Hospital, Newasa. While conducting the Postmortem, following external injuries were noticed. 1. Transverse incised could on chin region 6 cm X 2 cm bone cut. 2. Oblique incised wound on upper occipital region in middle 6 cm X 3 cm bone piece of 3 cm x 3 cm separated. 3. Oblique incised would on left occipital region on lower part 6 cm x 2 cm x 5 cm 4. Incised wound on left index finger 5. Incised wound between left thumb and index finger. The medical officer opined that the probable cause of death is due to shock due to injury to spinal cord due to sharp and hard object like axe. Accordingly, Postmortem report (Exhibit-20) was prepared. The blood sample, collected by the Medical Officer, was sent to Chemical Analyzer for examination of blood group. d) Clothes of the deceased were seized under seizure Panchanama (Exhibit-36). On 22.08.2008, statements of 6 witnesses were recorded. As the appellant attempted to commit suicide, offence punishable u/s 309 of the Indian Penal Code was added in the crime. Thereafter, the appellant drp {4} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 made a disclosure statement, which led to recovery of one axe, which was seized under recovery Panchanama (Exhibit-40). Thereafter, statements of certain more witnesses were recorded. During the investigation, on 29.02.2008, the appellant had expressed his willingness to make confessional statement. Accordingly, a request letter (Exhibit-41) was submitted to JMFC, Newasa. Thereafter the seized property was sent to CA for examination. e) On 04.03.2008 and 05.03.2008, the appellant was produced before JMFC, Newasa for recording of his confessional statement u/s 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was recorded and forwarded by the JMFC, in a sealed envelope (Exhibit-19/3). d) The appellant was referred for medical examination and accordingly injury certificate (Exhibit-50) was issued and blood sample of the appellant was collected. A sketch map of the scene of offence (Exhibit-53) was prepared and after completion of the investigation and receipt of the CA reports, charge sheet was filed against the appellant before JMFC, Newasa. e) On committal of the trial, trial court framed charge (Exhibit-8) for an offence punishable u/s 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant abjured his guilt and drp {5} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 claimed to be tried. The prosecution, to substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant, examined in all 10 witnesses. Other than Judicial Magistrate First Class-who had recorded the confessional statement of the appellant, the medical officer-who had examined the appellant and the investigating officer remaining witnesses did not remain loyal with the prosecution and turned hostile. After appreciation of the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and mainly relying on the confession of the appellant recorded u/s 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the medical evidence coupled with the CA reports, trial court convicted the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code whereas acquitted him for the offence punishable u/s 309 of the Indian Penal Code. Admittedly, the State has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal of the appellant for the offence punishable u/s 309 of the Indian Penal Code and hence the said finding has attained finality. 3) For better appreciation of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and that of learned APP on behalf of the State, it may be useful to advert to the evidence of material witnesses recorded during the trial. 4. The appellant has admitted the contents of the Postmortem report (Exhibit-31). On bare perusal of the description of the injuries found on the person of deceased Sakharbai and drp {6} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 noted by Medical Officer, there is no doubt in our mind that the death of Sakharbai is homicidal one. 5. Once it is concluded that the deceased died homicidal death, then the further question, which requires consideration, is as to who is the author of the injuries found on the person of the deceased, which resulted in her death. In the instant case, the available evidence on record is confessional statement of the appellant recorded u/s 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code by PW-6 JMFC coupled with the medical evidence and reports of the Chemical Analyzer. 6. It is in the evidence of PW-6 Rajendra Tukaram Ghogale, that at the material time he was serving as Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate First Class at Newasa. On 04.03.2008, the appellant was produced before him at about 12.05 noon. He had asked the police officials to leave the court hall and had explained the appellant about his status. He had enquired with the appellant as to whether the appellant was threatened or induced to give the confessional statement. The appellant was also questioned as to whether he wanted to give his confession voluntarily. The appellant was also made aware of the consequences of the confessional statement. He has recorded the answers given by the appellant in question-answer form. Thereafter, 24 hours time was given to the appellant for his reflection and he was remanded to judicial custody with direction drp {7} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 to produce him on the next day. First part of the confessional statement recorded by PW-6 is proved and it is at Exhibit-23. Again the appellant was produced before PW-6 on 05.03.2008 at about 12.25 noon and after PW-6 satisfied himself that no police officials are present in the court hall or at the distance from where the proceedings can be audible or visible, he again enquired with the appellant and ascertained the voluntariness of the appellant to give his confession. It was also ascertained that the appellant has reflected. Thereafter, the answers given by the appellant were recorded in question-answer form. Thereafter, PW-6 satisfied himself that the appellant is voluntarily giving his confession and he was neither threatened nor induced to give the confession. Thereafter he recorded the confession of the appellant as given by him. PW-6, in his further evidence reproduced the confession of the appellant which is Exhibit-19. Thereafter certificates No.1, 2 and 3, as required under the Code of Criminal Procedure, were prepared, PW-6 has proved the contents of the confessional statement given by the appellant as well as the certificates No.1 to 3. He has stated that thereafter the appellant was remanded to judicial custody and the confession of the appellant was sealed in a cover (Exhibit-19/3) and was handed over to the concerned. 7. PW-6 has stated in his cross examination that the appellant was questioned in vernacular language to which he had replied in the same language, however the confessional statement (Exhibit-19) was recorded in the court language i.e. in English drp {8} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 language. PW-6 has admitted in his further evidence that on 29.02.2008 an application was moved before him to record the confession of the appellant. On 04.03.2008, the appellant was in judicial custody. He has stated that he had framed questions in part-1 and part-2 as prescribed in the Criminal Manual. He has explained in his cross examination the answer given to question No.16 by the appellant. He denied that on 04.03.2008 and 05.03.2008 the appellant was under pressure and never gave confessional statement voluntarily. 8. In this background, heard the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and learned APP for the respondent State. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant urged before us that the conviction of the appellant cannot be based on his uncorroborated confession. It is also urged that the confession of the appellant is not his voluntary statement and in absence of sufficient evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted for the charge of offence punishable u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also urged that there is no corroboration to the facts, allegedly disclosed by the appellant in his confessional statement. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in th matter of “State of Delhi V/s Shri Ram Lohiya” AIR 1960 SC 490 (V 47 C 83). The Apex Court, in the said judgment, has observed that the statement of the “witness” drp {9} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 recorded u/s 164 of the Criminal Procedure code, is not a substantive evidence and it can only be used to corroborate or contradict. In the case in hand, statement of the appellant recorded u/s 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is his confession and not his statement as a ‘witness’ and hence the observations of the Apex Court, in the said judgment, would not apply to the present case. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of “Babubhau Udesinh Parmar V/s State of Gujrat” 2007 (2) SRJ 575. In this judgment, the Apex Court has observed that the retracted confessional statement requires corroboration. In the present case, the appellant has retracted his statement, when his statement u/s 313 was being recorded, which is at very belated stage of the trial and, therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant has retracted his voluntary statement. In such circumstances, the observations of the Apex Court in the said judgment are also not applicable to the facts of the present case. 10. Learned APP supported the judgment of conviction recorded by the trial court. 11. There cannot be duality of opinion that conviction can be based on the confession of the accused provided that the confession must be given voluntarily and with free will. Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act deals with the relevancy and admissibility of the confession recorded during the investigation. drp {10} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 Section 24 of the Evidence Act, reads thus - “A confession made by an accused person is irrelevant in a criminal proceedings, if the making of the confession appears to the Court to have been caused by any inducement, threat or promise, having reference to the charge against the accused person, proceeding from person in authority and sufficient, in the opinion of the Court, to give the accused person grounds, which would appear to him reasonable, for supposing that by making it he would gain any advantage or avoid any evil of a temporal nature in reference to the proceedings against him” 12. At this juncture, it may be useful to refer the observations of the Apex Court in the matter of “Lokeman Shah V/s State of West Bengal” 2001 Cri.L.J. 2196. The Apex Court in this judgment, has observed that the confessional statement of the accused can be acted upon, without corroboration, for the purpose of entering his conviction. It is further observed that - “Way back in 1957, the Supreme Court has laid down the law in explicit terms that confession if true and reliable can form the basis of conviction, (vide Balbir Singh V State of Punjab, AIR 1957 SC 216 : 1957 Cri.LJ 481), Pyare Lal Bhargava V State of Rajasthan, AIR 1963 SC 1094 : 1963 Supple (1) SCR 689 : (1963 (2) Cri.LJ 178) and Ram Chandra Prasad Sharma V.State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 349: (1966) 3 SCR 517 : (1967 Cri.LJ 409). Yet this Court said time and again that as a rule of prudence the Court must seek other circumstances to corroborate a confession, particularly when the same is retracted. There also the delay involved in making the retraction was considered relevant for a Court to judge regarding genuineness of the. Even about the extent of drp {11} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 corroboration this Court has pointed out as early as 1954, that if it is insisted that “each and every circumstance mentioned in the confessional statement must be separately and independently corroborated then the rule would become meaningless inasmuch as the independent evidence itself would afford sufficient basis for conviction and hence it would be unnecessary to call the confession in aid” (vide Hemraj V. State of Ajmer, 1954 SCR 1133 : (AIR 1954 SC 462 : 1954 Cri.LJ 1313). This was reiterated by a three Judge Bench of this Court in Balbir Singh V. State of Punjab, (AIR 1957 sC 216 : 1957 Cri LJ 481) (Supra). This is what the learned Judges observed then. (Para-18) ‘It is necessary to emphasis here that the rule of prudence does not require that each and every circumstance mentioned in the confession with regard to the participation of the accused person in the crime must be separately and independently corroborated, nor is it essential that the corroboration must come from facts and circumstances discovered after the confession was made.” 13. It is also observed by Apex Court, in the matter of “Mohd. Khalid V/s State of Bengal” (2002) 7 SCC 334 thus - “that brings us to another angle i.e. acceptability of the confession. Section 24 of the Evidence Act interdicts a confession if it appears to the court to be the result of any inducement, threat or promise in certain conditions. The principle therein is that confession must be voluntary. It must be the outcome of his own free will inspired by the sound of his own conscience to speak nothing but the truth. Words and phrases, Permanent Edn. Vol.44, P.622 defines “voluntary” as : ‘Voluntary’ means a statement made of the free will and drp {12} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 accord of accused, without coercion, whether from fear of any threat of harm, promise, or inducement or any hope of reward – State V. Mullin.” In Words and Phrases by John B. Saunders, 3rd Edn. Vol.4, P.401 “voluntary” is defined as : “....... The classic statement of the principle is that of Lord Sumner in Ibrahim V. R. (AC at P.609) where he said, “it has long been established as a positive rule of English criminal law that no statement by an accused is admissible in evidence against him unless it is shown by the prosecution to be a voluntary statement, in the sense that it has not been obtained from him either by fear of prejudice or hope of advantage exercised or held out by a person in authority. The principle is as old as Lord Hale.” However, in five of the eleven textbooks cited to us .... support is to be found for a narrow and rather technical meaning of the word “voluntary”. According to this view, “voluntary” means merely that the statement has not been made in consequence of (i) some promise of advantage or some threat, (ii) of a temporal character, (iii) held out or made by a person in authority and (iv) relating to the charge in the sense that it implies that the accused’s position in the contemplated proceedings will or may be better or worse according to whether or not the statement is made.’ R.V.Power (ALL ER at PP 454, 455), Per Cantley, V.” 14. Considering the observations of the Apex Court, cited in above paragraphs, now it is necessary to consider as to whether the confession of the appellant is his voluntary confession or he was threatened or induced to give confession before the JMFC. In this regard, it may be useful to take a note that in the statement of drp {13} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 the appellant, recorded u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the appellant has categorically admitted that the appellant was made aware by PW-6 JMFC about his status as well as the effect and consequences of the confessional statement, if given by the appellant and thereafter time of 24 hours was given to the appellant for reflection. It is also admitted by the appellant that the appellant was produced before PW-6 on 05.03.2008 at that time the applicant was again enquired by PW-6 about his voluntariness to give his confessional statement and after ascertaining his voluntariness, PW-6 JMFC had recorded the confessional statement of the appellant. In answer to question No.31, the appellant has specifically replied that it is true that his confessional statement (Exhibit-19) was recorded as given by him, which was read over and explained to him. He has further admitted that the confessional statement (Exhibit-19) was correctly recorded as per statement given by him on which he had put his signature, but in answer to question No.37, he has replied that the statement was recorded by PW-6 as narrated by him, however he had made a false statement before the Court. In answer to question No.36, he has replied that he was forced to give a false statement in the Court. It is to be noted that his confessional statement was recorded on 05.03.2008 and evidence of PW-6, was recorded before the trial court on 20.06.2009 i.e. almost after a year of recording of the confessional statement of the appellant. During the said period no complaint was made by the appellant either before the Court of Magistrate who had recorded his confession or before the trial drp {14} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 court, that he had given false confessional statement before the learned Magistrate or he was forced to give such false statement. According to us, now the stand taken by the appellant at the time of recording of his statement u/s 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code that he had given a false statement before the learned Magistrate and he was forced to give the same, is an afterthought stand. We are of the considered view that the confessional statement (Exhibit-19) given by the appellant was his voluntary statement and hence conviction can be based on the said voluntary confessional statement. 15. We have already observed that the death of Sakharbai is a homicidal one. Though the material prosecution witnesses turned hostile, yet it transpires from the evidence of Investigating Officer that immediately, on the same night, on 21.02.2008, the appellant was put under arrest and clothes on his person were seized so also the clothes of the deceased were seized in presence of the appellant. In this respect, it is necessary to refer the CA reports (Exhibit-45 to Exhibit-48). The CA reports indicate that blood group of deceased Sakharbai was “A” while the blood group of the appellant is “B”, report in respect of the soil collected from the spot indicates that physico chemical characteristics of the exhibits tallied with each other. CA reports further indicate that the blood found on the clothes of the deceased was of “A” group while the blood found on the baniyan of the appellant was of “A” and “B” groups. The blood found on the axe, which was recovered drp {15} Cri. Appeal No.575/2009 at the instance of the appellant, was of “A” group. Thus, the CA reports corroborate the contentions of the confessional statement of the appellant that he has committed murder of his mother. The appellant was arrested immediately on the spot and clothes on his person were seized and the blood found on his clothes was his own blood as well as blood of the deceased. So far as blood of his own group is concerned, the same is the result of his attempt to commit suicide for which offence he has been acquitted by the trial court. However, it is one of the circumstance, which corroborates the facts disclosed by the appellant in his confessional statement (Exhibit-19). Thus, from the above discussion, it is established that the confessional statement of the appellant (Exhibit-19) recorded u/s 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code is his voluntary statement and found corroboration on material particulars disclosed by him. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, we do not notice any perversity in the judgment of conviction recorded against the appellant u/s 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant, recorded by the trial court, does not warrant any interference. 16. Consequently, the criminal appeal, which is devoid of any merit, fails and is dismissed by confirming the conviction and sentence. [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/A11/criapel575-09