HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DB: Hon’ble Shri Dhifendra Mishra & Hon’ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. Criminal Aggeal No. 1232 of 2003 Jailal S/o. Mahroo Ram Halva, aged about 46 years, occupation service (Peon) r/o Vlllage Latapara Narayanpur PS Narayanpur District Bastar Appellant State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Narayanpur - Bastar (CG). Respondent Present: Shri YV Raman Rao counselforthe appellant Shri U N S Deo Govt Advocate forthe State ORAL JUDGMENT (1 3 8-201 0) 1. This crlmlnal appeal Is directed agamst the Judgment of conVlctlon and order of sentence dated 5 9 2003 passed In Sessions Trlal > Case No. 432 of 2002, whereby learned Sessrons Judge, Bastar, L Jagdalpur, has convicted the appellant under Sections302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code for burying the dead body of his wife namely Dashrathi Bai after committing her murder on ‘19-4- 2002 and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and Rl for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/—respectively, in default of payment of tine to undergo additional RI for one year. i 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that Girdhar (PW/1) son of the appellant, Iodged a report (EXP/2) in Police Station Narayanpur on 19-4-2002 at about 12.10 p.m. informing that on that day he had gone to river at 7.00 a.m. and his sister namely Chameli Bai (PW/3) also had gone to river, at that time appellant' and his mother Dashrathi Bai were in home. When he returned from river at about 8.00 a.m., his father Jailai toid him that he had murdered his mother by axe. Thereafter, he went inside the house and found his mother lying dead on the ground. She had injury of axe over her neck and blood was oozing. He ran away out of fear and informed Dhaniram, Damaru, Lacchu, Birbal Singh and Mahendra Singh about the incident and thereafter he Iodged thereport in Police Station Narayanpur. After registering the crime, police proceeded for investigation to village Narayanpur and after conducting inquest (EXP/16) over the person of the deceased in presence of witnesses, the dead body was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Narayanpur where Dr. M.K. Suryavanshi (PW/6) conducted postmortem and gave his report (Ex—P/14-A). On the basis of memorandum of the appellant, weapon of offence axe was seized fro'm his house on the date of incident itself vide Ex.P/5. Dead body of Dashrathi Bai was recovered from the bank of river on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant vide Ex.P/10. eapon of offence axe seized from appellant was sent to Doctor for his opinion and the Doctor vide his report (Ex.P/15-A) opined \. / / W that injuries present over the deceased could becaused by’ the aforesaid weapon. ‘After completing the. investigation, charge sheet was tiled against the appeilant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Narayanpur, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellant who abjured his guilt. Prosecution in order to establish the charges against the appellant examined 6 witnesses in all. Thereafter the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Crimina Procedure, in which he denied the circumstances appearin against him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false implication. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of the judgment. Homicidal death of deceased Dashrathi Bai is not in dispute. Even othenNise, from the evidence of Dr. M.K. Suryavanshi (PW/6), who conducted postmortem and found as many as nine inc§ed wounds on neck,‘elbow, knees, shoulder, chest and abdomen as described in paragraph nine of the judgment and further opined that the deceased died as a result of excessive blood hemorrhage due to injuries found on the dead body and her death was homicidal in nature, homicidal death of Dashrathi Bai is established. g l Qg; ConViction of the appellant is based on evidence of Girdhar (PW/1) and C‘hemili Bai (PW/3), son and daughter of the accused/appellant before whom the accused/appellant confessed that he had committed murder of their mother with axe. Conviction of the appellant is also based on evidence of Damaru PW/2) who is the witness of memorandum of the appeilant (Ex.P/4) on the basis of which weapon of offence axe was seized from his house. He is aiso the witness of recovery memorandum of the dead body of the deceased (EXP/10) from the bank of river hich was rec0vered on the basis of disciosure statement of the appellant. Shri Y.V. Raman Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is no eye-witness to the incident. The conviction of the appellant is based on extra judicial confession and there was no motive on the part of the appellant to commit murder of his own wife. On the other hand, Shri U.N.S, Deo, Government Advocaté, appearing on behalf of the State supported the impugned judgment. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the r‘ecord of the trial court as also the impugnedjudgment. From close scrutiny of the evidence of Girdhar (PW/1) and Chamili (PW/3), son and daughter of the deceased, we-find that the accused/appellant confessed before them immediately after incident when they returned from river that he had committed murder of Dashrathi Bai with axe. Extra Judicial Confession made ' 3 / ( w , by the appellant ,is prompt, voluntary and without any duress. Taking into consideration that the witnesses Girdhar (PW/1) and Chameii (PW/3) are none else than son and daughter of the accused/appeiiant, we have no reason to suspect the veracity of the evidence of these two witnesses, that apart the buried dead body of the deceased was recovered from the bank of river from the place indicated by the appellant which is established from the evidence of Damaru. The evidence of Girdhar (PW/1) who has lodged the first information report is duly corroborated by the postmortem report, according to which the deceased sustained as many as nine incised wounds caused by axe on various parts of her body. We find no substance in the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution failed .to prove motive for commission of the crime. We have already held that the evidence of Girdhar (PW/1) and Chamili Bai (PW/3) of extra judicial confession is reliable and inspires confidence and conviction can be made on the basis of such extra judicial confession, that apart it is a case of house murder and there is evidence that when both the witnesses Girdhar (PW/1) and Chameli Bai (PW/3) went t‘o river side in the morning, at that time, the appellant and deceased. alone were present in the house and thereafter dead body was found inside the house by Girdhar (PW/1 ). From the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish the charge against the /*l 69 appellant beyond reasonable doubt and we find no substance in his w; this appeal 14. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. A Sd/_ A ‘ fM‘? Sd/- l Dhirendra Mlshra KN. Chandrakar i NR» . Judge V i i i Judge i 1 Raju , l’ i i i , W , ‘ / 1 i ‘ i