@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gugta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2001 Heera Lal ‘ Vs. State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT . For considera ' Sdl- f Sunil Kumar Sinha ,/—:{ LK/06/2009 Judge HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA j? W Sdl- Chief Justice 56:5; /06/2009 Post for Judgment :3a06/2(g Sdl— SUNIL KUMAR SINHA Judge : TT ; @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gugta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Agpeal No. 69 of 2001 AéPELLANT Heera Lal S/o Amar Sai Toppo, aged about 28 Yrs., Resident of Village— Karampur Pandripani, P.S. Jainagar, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) ‘ Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through the Police Station- Jainagar, Distt. Surguja ‘ (C.G.) - (Appeal under. Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: RE§I§ONDENT t Mr. Rakesh Pandey, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, for the State. JUDGMENT (3o .062009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant Heera Lal stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay hne of Rs.1,000/— with a default sentence of R.l. for 5 months, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 53/99 on 21.12.2000. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased Muniya Bai was the wife of the appellant. She was in habit of heavy drinking. On 20.10.98, when the appellant returned from’his duty, he saw that Muniya Bai was lying in drunken cndition. She had not prepared the meals. Their children o / Criminal N0. 69 0f2001 were weeping. The allegations are that on account of all this, the appellant assaulted the deceased with a bamboo-stick. .The deceased received multiple injuries and succumbed to those injuries on 21.10.98. The appellant himself went to the village chaukidar Mukhiyar (PW-1) and narrated the story. Mukhiyar (PW— 1) went to his house and saw the dead body. The appellant also made extra-judicial confession before Lalman.(PW—2), Mohan Uraon, Jaikaran Uraon, Somaru and Parsaal (PW—6). The matter was reported to the police‘by Mukhiyar (PW-1), on which, a merg ‘ intimation (Ex.—Pl1) and First Information Report (Ex.-P/2) were :uEecorded. The Investigating Officer reached to the scene of occurrence gave notice (Ex P/10) to the Panchas and prepared Inquest (Ex P/1 1) on the body of the deceased The dead body of, the deceased was sent for its post—mortem to Community Health Centre, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr " Kamlesh Kumar Tamrakar (PW-7), who prepared his report Ex.- PI14. The Autopsy Surgeon noticed 9 injuries on the body of the deceased and he also noticed fractures of maxilla and fibula bones corresponding to injury No 2 & 7. He opined that the cause of death was shock due to fractures and the injuries sustained by the deceased and it Was homicidal in nature. (3) Mr. Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. Moreover, it comes in the evidence of Mukhiyar (PW-1), Lalman (PW-2) and Parsaal (PW-6) that the appellant made extra-judicial confession before them that he has committed the murder of his wife. Dr. Kamlesh Kumar Tamrakar (PW—7) also found the above injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the cause of death was shock due to fractures and the injuries sustained by the deceased and it was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the death of the deceased was ”/homicidal n nature. ,w i ; 3 Fr§minal N0. 69 0f 2001 (4) Mr. Pandey argued that the evidence of extra-judicial confession madei by the appellant is shakey. We have carefully examined the evidence relating to extra-judicial confession. The principle on the point is ' that If the eVIdence about extra Judlmal confesswn comes from the mouth of Witness/Witnesses who appear to be unbiased not even remotely Inlmlcal 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 i‘ . are clear unambiguous and unmistakably convey that the accused is the Cu ' 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. lf 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 (Please 'see- State of U.P. —Vs- M.K. Anthony (19852 1 SCC 5051. (5) On careful scrutiny the evidence of Mukhiyar (PW-1), Lalman (PW— 2) and Parsaal (PW-.6), it appears that they are the natural witnesses being the local villagers. PW—1, Mukhiyar, was a chaukidar. Nothing has been brought on record to show that they were either bias or even remotely inimical to the accused. ‘fhe words spoken to, these witnesses eare clear and unambiguous and, unmistakably convey that the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime therefore, the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted Moreover the / deceased was the Wife of the appellant and her dead body was found in lliw 4 Criminal No. 69 of 2001 the house of the appellant, therefore, it was the appellant Who had to explain about the death of his wife whose body was found inside his house and the death was shown to be homicidal in nature. According to 'PW—1,‘ Mukhiyar, village chaukidar, and other witnesses the‘ appellant explained about the homicidal death of his wife that he himself was the i perpetrator of the crime and he was responsible for the same. Therefore, the complicity of the appellant in crime in question was fully established by the prosecution and there can be hardly any doubt about it. . u . (6) Mr. Pandey then argued that the incident occurred on account of a petty matter when ‘the quarrel begun between the appellant and the deceased and the appellant, in heat of anger, assaulted his wife with one smalilbamboo-stick, therefore, he would not be liable for punishment u/s 302 IPC and his such act would not travel beyond Section 304 Part-ll IPC. (7) We have carefully considered the argument advanced by Mr. Pandey. (8) Admittedly, the deceased was wife of the appellant and she was in habit of heavy drinking. According to the prosecution case, on the fateful day the appellant had gone to work in colliery and the deceased took heavy drink in the house. When the appellant returned back, he saw the deceased lying in drunken condition. The deceased had not prepared the meals for them and the children of appellant were weeping due to hunger. lt appears that on account of all this, the quarrel begun and in heat of anger without anygpreparation or premeditation the appellant caused injuries to the deceased by a bamboo—stick which were also not on the ti ' Criminal No. 69 of 2001 vital part of the body. The above facts and circumstances would show that the appellant was having no intention to cause death of the deceased but certainly he was having knowledge that the death may be a likely result of the act committed by him. (9) 1 In the facts and circumstance of the case, in our considered view, the act of the appellant would make him liable for punishment under Part- ii of section 304 IPc. JV‘.‘ (10) Accordingly,“ the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 302 IPC are set aside. Instead, the appellant is convicted u/s 304 Part-II IPC. The appellant was taken into ‘ custody on 21.10.98 and was released on b'ail’On 21.9.2005. In this manner, he has already undergone for a period of about 7 years. Therefore, we sentence him to the period already undergone, which would meet the ends of justice. (11) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. \fJA\\ Sdl— Chief Justice vatti