HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. 8& Hon^ble^Shn Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 510/ 2002 Man Sai Vs. State ofChhattisgarh \ JUDGMENT For consic^eration 1 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha 1 Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA J ^^y^-- Sd/- Chief Justice Postfor /-^-/7/2QQ9_ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge r{t ^T^% HIGILCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Guota, C.J. & Hon^ble Shri Sunil Kumar Smha, J. APPELLANT Criminal Aooeal No. 510 of 2002 Man Sai, aged about 33 years, S/o Jagdeo, Caste Gadwa, R/o Jatam, P.S. Fejarpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G). RESPONDENT Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Fejarpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 (2) OF THB CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDUREl Appearance: Mr. Ram Krishna Sharma, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate, for the State. JUDGMENT ( /^ .07.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant Man Sai stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life by the III Addl. Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.519/2001 on 07th ofMarch, 2002. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under: Cr.A.No.510/2002 Deceased Mano was the second wife of the appellant. She was residing with the appellant in watchman's quarter of Chetna Kendra. On 03.10.2001, Ghasiram (P.W.l) came to his house for taking some seeds. He had some talk with the appellant. The first wife of the appellant namely Chhena @ Sulochana said him to see deceased Manu, on which, he went in side the room and saw that Mano was lying dead in pool of blood. There were injuries on her head. Ghasi Ram (P.W.l) called the villagers including Sarpanch Lachhin, Kotwar Somaru and Ex-Sarpanch Shyamlal (P.W.3). They asked the appellant as to how the incident took place ? The appellant made extra judicial confession before them saying that the deceased had illicit relations with other persons, therefore, he has killed the deceased in the night by assaulting on her head with stone. The matter was reported to the concerned police station by Ghasi Ram (P.W.l), on which, a First Information Report (Ex.P.l) was registered. The investigating officer reached to the scene of occurrence; gave notice (Ex.P.2) to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P.3) on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur, where the postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. K.K. Nag (P.W.4), who prepared his report Ex.P.9. He noticed three external injuries on the skull of the deceased, On internal examination, he found that there was an irregular fracture of right frontal bone. There was also a fracture on temporal bone. Huge amount of blood was there in the cerebral cavity. He opined that the cause of death was coma and hemorrhagic F Cr.A.No.510/2002 shock, due to intra-cerebral and sub-dural hemorrhage and it was homicidal in nature. In further investigation, after taking the accused/ appellant in custody, his memorandum u/s 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex.P.4) was recorded and a big stone of about 5 Kgs. Weight was seized on the instance of the appellant under Ex.P.7. Blood stained and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence under Ex.P.5 and blood stained cloth of the appellant was seized under Ex.P.6. The site plan was prepared under Ex.P.ll. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, under Ex.P.16 but the report of the Laboratory could not be produced. After completion of the usual investigation, the charge sheet was filed in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jagdalpur, who in turn committed the matter to the Sessions Court, Jagdalpur, from where it was received on transfer by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge, Bastar, Jagdalpur, who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. (3) The conviction of the appellant is based on the extra judicial confession made by him before the villagers including Ghasi Ram (P.W.l) and Shyam Lal (P.W.3). (4) Mr. Ram Krishna Sharma, learned counsel appearingon behalf of the appellant has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. More-over, it comes in the evidence of P.W.l s ^' (. \ Cr.A.No.510/2002 Ghasi Ram that he saw the dead body of the deceasedlying in pool of blood in the house of the appellant. There were many injuries on her head. The appellant made extra judicial confession before him. In the post mortem examination, the Autopsy Surgeon Dr. K.K. Nag (P.W.4), also found the above injuries on the skull of the deceased and opined that the deceased died on account of coma and hemorrhagic shock due to intra-cerebral and sub-dural hemorrhage and it was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (5) Mr. Sharma, then argued that the evidence on the point of extrajudicial confession is shal^. (6) On the other hand, Mr. Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate, appearing on behalf of the State opposed these arguments. He further argued that the dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellant and the appellant explained as to how the death of deceased occurred by giving a confessional statement. Even if the statement is held to be not proved, it was for the appellant to explain as to how the deceased died a homicidal death in side his house. (7) We have considered the above arguments and have also perused the records of the Sessions Case. (8) P.W. 1 Ghasi Ram deposed that on the fateful day at about 7 a.m. he had gone to the house of the appellant for taking ^ome seeds. Chhena @ Sulochana was also present there. She ^^^" Cr.A.No.510/2002 said to him to see Mano in side the room. He saw that Mano was lying dead in the room. Thereafter, he called the villagers including Sarpanch, Kotwar and Shyamlal (P.W.3). They asked the appellant as to how the incident took place, on which, the appellant made extra judicial confession before them that in the night he has killed the deceased by assaulting her with stone. (9) Shyamlal (P.W.3) also deposed in similar fashion. According to him, Ghasi Ram (P.W.l) told him about the death of wife of the appellant. He reached to the house of appellant and saw the dead body of the deceased in his house. When they asked the appellant as to how the incident took place, the appellant made extra judicial confession before them that he has killed his wife in the night by assaulting her with stone. Though these witnesses have been put to lengthy cross examinations by the defence, but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance on which their testimonies may be discarded. (10) It has been laid down in many cases that 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 k Cr.A.No.510/2002 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. (11) In appreciation, we find that the evidence of these witnesses are trustworthy and we are of the considered view that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly relied on the testimonies of these witnesses holding that the appellant made extra judicial confession before them. Another circumstance against the appellant is that the dead body of the deceased was found in side his house. Therefore, it was the appellant who had to explain as to how the deceased died a homicidal death in his house. In the present case, the appellant has explained by making extra judicial confession which we have held to be reliable. (12) In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment and finding recorded by the Sessions Court. The judgment of the Sessions Court is based on cogent, clinching and reliable evidence. (13) The appeal has no merits. The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge Rao