HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 8a ” Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2004 Birjhuram @‘Bhogchand Verma Vs. State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT For consideration Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge J HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA Sdl- Chief Justice ‘5 \ Post for Judgment :23/08/2009 5d!- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge I"? @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2004 ‘APPELLANT Birjhuram @ Bhogchand Verma, s/o Gondul Verma, aged about 57 i years, R/o Village Vatgan, P.S. Palari:'Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus ; a *3 ERESPONDENT The State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police £ a Station Palari, Distt. Raipur (C.G). (Appeal under Section 374 (2) of Tlie Code of Criminal Procedure) Appearance: Mr. Prakash Tiwari, Counsel for the appellant. Mr.Ravindra Agrawal, Panel Lawyer, for the State. JUDGMENT (2 31L .08.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant Birjhuram @ Bhogchand Verma stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/—, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, by the First {Additional Sessions Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur (C.G) in Judge, Sessions Trial No.42/2004 on 27th of May, 2004. 2 $? Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2004 (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:— Deceased Shanti was the wife of the appellant. She was residing with the appellant. On 22.08.2003 at about 4 a.m., the appellant committed murder of his wife in the Verandah of his house. At about 5.30 a.m., he went to the house of Village Kotwar Daya Das (P.W.4). Daya Das was not present in the house. The appellaht met the wife of Daya Das namely i “Sukh Bai (P.W.5) and said that he has committed murder of his wife.‘ He also stated that she should tell all this to the Iéotwar when he comes back. Thereafter, the appellant also a c went to the house of Lakhan (P.W.6) and Madho Ram Kannoji (P.W.7) and made extra judicial confession before them also. When Daya Das (P.W.4) came back, his wife Sukh Bai narrated the story, on which, Daya Das, Lakhan (P.W.6), Mahdo Ram (P.W.7), Rajendra Prasad and Firtu etc., went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of his wife lying in the 'verandah of his house. Blood wasp coming out from her body. She has sustained many. injuries on her neck. The appellant again confessed before these ‘ x persons that he has committed murder of his wife. The matter was reported to the concerned Police Station by Daya Das Kotwar (P.W.4), on which, merg intimation (Ex.P.13) and the First Information Report (EXP. 12) were recorded. The inVestigating officer reached to the scene of occurrence, gave notice (EX.P.7) to the Panchas \ .2 , l. ,7 . M, ‘ 3 Criminal Agpeal No. 638 of 2004 and prepared inquest (EXP-8) on the body of the deceased. The pieces of bangles were seized‘frorn the place of occurrence i.e‘., .Verandah of the house of the appellant under Ex.P.9. Blood stained soil and plain soil were also seized from the place of occurrence under EXP—10. Blood stained Tangi was seized from the possession of the appellant under EXP-ll. Site plan was prepared under ‘ef EXP—l. The dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem to Government Hospital, Palari, under EXP—16 where the postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. F.R. Nirala (P.W.9), who prepared his report EX.P—16(A). The autopsy surgeon found 9 incised wounds and a lacerated wound onthe body of the deceased. There were multiple incised wounds .on the face and neck region. Left jaw was completely cut. Trachea, Esophagus and all arteries and veins of thepleft portion of the neck along-with nerves were- completely cut. The skull bone was also fractured. There were fractures of ribs. The autopsy surgeon opined that all the injuries were antemortem. Except the injury on the head, all other injuries were caused by hard and sharp object. The injury of the head was caused by hard and blunt object. The cause of death was shock due to cut injuries and it was homicidal in nature. t gr >\ l ‘ 4 @ . Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2004 In further investigation, the seized Tangi was sent for its examination to Dr.F.R. Nirala (P.W.9) who gave his report Ex.P-18(A) and opined that the above incised wounds could be caused by the said article. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, under EXP—19, from Where ‘a report EXP—21 was received. ‘ i u According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on all the articles including the Tangi except the plain soil. s After“ completion of usual investigation, the charge— sheet was filed in the Court ‘of Judicial Magistrate, First r Class, Baloda Bazar, who in turn committed the matter to the concerned Sessions Court, from where it was received on transfer by the First Addl. Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, who Conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant, as aforementioned. p» (3) The conviction of the appellarit is based on the extra judicial confession made before Daya Das Kotwar (P.W.4), Sukh Bai (P.W.5), Lakhan Das Kotwar (P.W.6) and Madho Ram Kannoji (P.w.7). (4) Mr. Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of uthe appellant has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. More over, it comes in’ the evidence of Daya Das (P.w.4), Sukh Bai (P.w.5), Lakhan Das (P.w.6) and Madho Ram 5 @ Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2004 Kannoji (P.W.7) that the appellant made extra judicial confession before them that he has committed murder of his Wife. The autopsy surgeon, Dr. F‘ R. Nirala (P.W.9) also noticed the above injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that the injuries were antemortem and the cause of death was shock due to injuries sustained by the deceased and it was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. $‘1‘ (5) Mr. Tiwari further argued that the evidence of extra judicial confeséion appears to be shaky and the conviction cannot be sustained on the said evidence. (6) On the other hand, Mr. Ravindra Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing on behalf of the State opposed these arguments and supported the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. (7) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and- have also perused the records of the Sessions Case. (8) It has been laid down by the Ap‘ex Court 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 r i i l I I / @ 6 Criminal Appgal No. 638 of 2004 unmistakably convey that/the accused is the 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 ia conviction. If the evidence of extra judicial confession is l reliable, trustworthy and beyond reproach the same can be relied upon and a conviction can be founded thereon.” ‘ u f (9), Now we shall examine the evidence of extra judicial 4 confession. w (10) Sukh Bai (P.W.5) is the Wife of village Kotwar Daya Das (P.W.4). She deposed that on the fateful day, in the morning, he husband had gone to answer the call of nature. The appellant came to her housevand said that he has committed murder of his wife. He also stated she should tell this to the Kotwar when he returns back. When her husband came back, she narrated the story to her husband. At that tim’fe’, another Kotwar Lakhan Das (P.W.6) also came to their house and said that the appellant has made extra judicial confession before him. Daya Das (P.W.4) deposed that he was told about the extra judicial confession of the appellant by his wife Sukh Bai (P.W.S). Lakhan Das (P.W.6) also told him about the confession made by the appellant. Thereafter, they went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of the deceased lying in the verandah of the house of the appellant. They saw many injuries on the dead body including the injuries r 7 @ Criminal Appeal N0. 638 of 2004 on the neck and head. There also they asked the appellant, on which, he stated that since his Wife used to go away from the house in the night, therefore, he has killed his wife. It is after all this, a report was lodged by Daya Das (P.W.4) in the concerned Police Station, on which the merg intimation as well as the First Information Report were registered. The version of this witness is corroborated by the contents of the F.I.R. and the merg intimation which contains the name of the appellant as also the factum of 11 V 'f extra judicial confession made by him before the witnesses. (1i) Liékhan Dé§ (P.W.e) and Madho Ram Kannoji (P.W.7) also deposed that the appellant made extra judicial confession before the‘m. They further deposed that they had gone to the house of the appellant along—with Kotwar Daya Das (P.W.4) and had seen the dead body lying in the verandah of the house of the appellant. (12) 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 either their evidence may be discarded or it may be said that they are falsely implicating the appellant in crime in question. Daya Das,(P.W.4) and Lakhan Das (P.W.6) were the Village Kotwars. P.W.7 Madho Ram Kannoji was the Up—Sarpanch of the village. It appears that after gommitting the murder of the wife at about 4 a.m., the appellant went to the house of the village Kotwars and Up—Sarpanch and made extra judicial confession before them. The confession was not made at one point of time. The evidence on record would 8 @ Criminal Appeal No. 638 of 2004 show that the appellant made confessions on 3—4 occasions before the above witnesses and lastly he again confessed before them in his own house when they Visited his house to see the dead body. There is nothing on record to show that these witnesses were either biased or inimical to the appellant. Nothing is there to indicate that these witnesses had a motive for attributing an untruthful statement to the appellant. According to the version of these witnesses, the appellant clearly confessed before them about u f the commission of murder of hiswife. £ (13); In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the considered View that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly relied on the evidence of extra judicial confession made before the above Witnesses by the appellant and the conviction based on such evidence was fully justified‘ (14) For the foregoing reasons we do not find any substance in the appeal. The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby . dismissed. Sdl- Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Jusu‘ce Judge Rao