HIév‘H CGURT GF CHHATFI§6ARH AT 3ILA5PUR Car-am: Han'bla Mr,T.P.5har-ma &. Honrbie WirR. LJ‘hanwar, J‘T. M Crimina! Apnea! Nn.5é.7 af 2094. Bzlwan'ti Versus r Smta 9f Ch ha‘Hisgarh ‘JLIDQMENT Fog. goNswEaATIoN/ r r " g ‘ ’f’”*”" Sdk %“ T.P. Sharma Judge $ $2-2Gi0 i 1 i Hon‘b!e M,nR.L.Jhanwar. J. a a@*":/ Past fer Judgment an : 2~2-2mn :gl i *¥\ " 7 Sdl‘ ‘ T. P. Sharma Judge 2—2-20m’ K; , ’ ‘ (CQMTNA ADPFAL UNDEQ SFCTIQN 274 (?\ OF THE CQDE OF (‘QIMTNAL 1 PROCEDURE 1973) Prewn‘r - 1;. ,§.Bamik, counse! far The apgzlmnt Mrgakesh Kumar' iha, Depu‘ry Eovemmen‘r Aévocafe “For The ' S‘i’ufe/respondenjx JUDéMENT {Deiivered on Zw February, 201G) The judgmagf af fha Ceur‘r was daiévgred by T‘Pd5aarma, J;- ChQEiange in ibis apgea! is f9 The ja‘dgmeaf 9f aanvid‘ion R: m order 92‘ semence da‘red $.52Q64 passad by the Sessiens Judge‘ Surguja. (Amh Mguwl in Sggsigms Triai Nn 41 110? whereby é whewvt. A laarned Sessiezas Juré aHror- haldmn +‘m> a {,wHnm‘ guélfy f9?- cgmmiss§0n 93F culpabEa- hom§cié2 rimfh ammm’ring 1“ murdar of her husbmd iiarju, sister‘in—éaw f5hzmzri Bai, mowar-ia-law Ingnriya and fafher—in-law Ncmka @ Nnnwa mm; r+ed Wdw f§gc+mns Q02 291' 302 30? of firm Intham Pém3 Cede am sanfwced her 1‘9 andergo imprisanmen? for iife far Dark canvictim and f0 {my a fine of EsXQQGl—i in dafaalf of payment of fine “ha fLzri‘her wie‘ga simgia impriwnment for 1'hrtae. memhs. HFGH ('0‘ WT OF {HHATTISGARH AT BU A R €riména§ Awe-Q3 Na5é7 of 2004 03mm: Hm bi rT ? {H.RMA é Hgnb e MrR,LJHANWAR‘ k 3". AWELLAN“ r Belwam-i widow of Sarju Chamar (In im!) aged years resideni' of Viiiuge Eafwahi } Khu‘rm‘mm 913mg SmaWon Ambikapur Qisf‘t SEir-guja (€hha‘r‘risgarh) ; a *3 Versu5 V 2ESPDN§JENT - q‘l’m‘w a? ('hha‘rfisgarhv fhr‘ough 5J9. i Ambrkapur Jugigmen? is impugned an the gmund 1'haf wii'hou? fhere behg any dinghing and credihia avidenca, Th9 Caur‘!’ balow mm. canvici‘ed and senfenced Me appellam as aforemamiomd and 'l'hergby cnmmS'Had Czasa of the grosaw‘fien, izn briaf, is 141a? flag prgsa-n? opaelian? was Mfg tbf deczased Eargu, sismr-ia-hw 6f deceasad Shami Bai, écughfar-in—iaw 9f dgcaasgd Injgriya and éecaawgd Nanka The appailam was residing Qvi'?h her husband, father—in-imnfand mcfher‘in-lmni On the fnfg‘u! day n‘F 21V1g2¢0z her s§ster-in_!w; (Mama?) was alsQ presznt in the hausa 9f , a a fhe appalhn? a? vmaga Bwggahi disfricf Ambikapun The a§pallam was mai- hmymg cardiai ramtign wifh her hasband and daczased gersam usvd 4“.; §0ison Ea flag liqugr and prayided 1w fha daceased $arju, 5hgniri 8m , T £ o baa? ker‘ 5w The écfe of inciéenf, :rhe appeHmt mixed demgcron wnjariya and Nankm (3‘ $Qanwa. Affer drinking pciwnous !iqu«3r,‘gl! fine parsens bemme umarmciraus. JQmum Qnm (PW-D ’reak unconssious Sarju, in inriva and 5hcam‘i 1'9 D§sfrimr Hcrspii‘ai, Ambikagur. Iajured Injcriyg and Scrum died en 21.10’20Q3‘ Jamum Dam lea§ged marg infimmggn Vida EXP/i1. Shenfi Bai £1559 d.ed i. mg hpspi'm!‘ Radheshyam infQrmed fha golice'aad merg iiq‘rmafmrs was racgrdzd Vida EXP/1E Dea‘m 9f Nanka was also iniima‘md by Jamum Ram (PW-3') vide Ex.P!10. Invesiiga‘tin W .officzr Qrrmggdad fer fhe seem 9f ciamrrence and after summgning fh U3 wimgxes v§de Exs.P!1 Md P12, Enqnzs‘!’ war ‘thg dead body 9f daceasM Sarju, iimm'i 8m rnd l'njoriym wara graparec! vide ExsP/3 to P/5. Inves?igafing affice. (13$: gummonad irhz mmesses vide EXPIM cmd prepamd ingues? war irks dead bad)! 9f deceased Nanka Vida EXP/15 *{m’r mar was premredby pa'rwari Vida ExsP/é and PJ13. Dead bigdy 9f daca_,sad New? mus sen? far caumgsy 1'9 Di3?ri-.t1' Hospiml, Ami‘ikapur Vida ExP/lén Aumigw was condua‘red 99y UrdlKghumni (MAI-10) v%de ExPJ29 and ap‘med ”$31-11? death. wa$ :33 a rasuh' 9f asgkyxia‘ Viscem ware prasewad. Dead bad)! 01" daceasad lnjwiya was aka sem for gummy Vida EXPQé A" Aufnpsy was conduc're& by DrJ.K.-Bhu1'ani (?W—1Q} Vida a EXP/’95 and Qpined fha‘l‘ death was as a resuH' 9f agphyxia. Viscem ware prewerva J. D‘md bcdy 0% damaged Shanfi Em was dse sen? far (wimpy 'vida EXP/27.. Aufap5y was conducted. by Dr.J.K.Bhumni (PW-10) Vida Cede 9f Criminai Prgcaéure, 1973 (hereinaftar re.erred t- as ‘tha Code’). After mmpietiw of imesfigatim, charga sheet was fiied in The Cour? of Chief Judiciai Magigirm‘el iimbikapur, wiw‘ Vi tum sommitied tha case 1‘0 im Sour-i ef $assi¢ns, Ambikapur. I?! arder m pmve fiez ggiit nf fhe a¢cu5gdlappeiiant ‘i‘hs: prwecu’iion has examimd as many 0:»: 1.3 wimwsgs. Siafamem cf The accusedg’appeiianf was gisag- reneréad undar Sgc‘riim 31-3 of ‘ihe (Jade where she, denied “ii-m circumsmmes agigearimg. noains? her and pieqs‘d inmgence and faise impiica’i‘ian in. me crime in questim. Ex,P!28 (and owned ‘rha? émfh was as a resuh ¢2f asphyxia Dead bady ef deceasad 5arju wasclso sen? far naimpsy vidg EX‘PI3Q‘ Aumpw wcts coné‘ucfed by Dr.§.ki.8h=.:‘ran§ (PW-i0) vide EXP/31 and Qpined ”that? dzm‘h was. a. a rasm‘!‘ m? asphyxia During the muwe 01F inwatiga'rim, Th2- agpeiianf was faken mire cu$mdy. 51m made, disclc'sure s‘mfemem' 9f -bttia of dammmn Vida EXP/8 am producad fke same. After faking the sr3r§elfmm saiQ, 53mg was ragga/grad *rwn i’ine gpgeilan? yide E>€.P./9. “we gér‘?§'e£ra water 3y)? was} fm liqum’ md ‘kwo beftks cf Equor‘ wgm seized fmm §Amru videéxP/lT/v éigsszs marl baffies containing iiquar were aisa A sLized fmm :‘hz Ego? vide Ex.P/1$. ., mpie {if prasarvm'ivg were seizad \ Vida EXP/19. Finaiiy, iha FIR. was: iadgaci vide Ex.P!21 on 20.192002. Seized articies and viscera é‘: bmtig 9f damocmn were $en't for chemimi examinaticm Vida Ex.P./?..4. Presgnca 0f efhyi Lind methyi nicohe! were. canfirmad in fhz aiieaad iiauar $a.zed from Amm vide ExP/25. Presence J ‘l democran insacticide (gr-gang) pmspemus) were confirmed in visgam 9f the deceased Swami Shanii 8m, Injariya' Nanka and pias‘tic hettie recwzred a“? fhe iwsiamg 9f i'hé: appeiiani’ by chamicai examimiien vide. EXP/3.2. § 4A Siai'e-men'is 0f We. wimesys ware mcnrdgri wider- Saciicm 161 m‘ {the ._ Aftr affnraiing an oppgr‘runify 9f hearing ta the parties, karma-d Sassioas Judga’ AmbiLapur has convic?:zd and sentencad *rhe. aggallan‘r as aferemgmioned. 7.. We. hmla heard Mr. J‘S‘vgamik, caunsel fer tha appenmt and M?.Rakesh Kumar .Iha, Daguty éavemmem Advomfa for Tha State and per-used +‘ne Hdgmen‘!‘ and regard 9f fhe Ceur? beicw. 30x g vi3 ”s3ND. h0 . ”as“? for fhe apgelgan? vehemzn-rXy argugd flaw: this: is fhz (1) ‘The. appeihnt was in pesgssion 9f Hquor and paisen, 1 A (2) §he was having sufficient appormnify to rmx poison. in The liquor, (3) She has pmvided go§son§us Qiquor 1'9 the. deceased persens and The deceasgd persrms imam ccnsumed pQisomus Mum gewvideé by the appeHan’r. gu‘!‘ irs the mag??? case, Tha pm5ecu1’i9n ha$ u‘rteriy failed 1'0 wove, ihe nfmasaid circums‘mncas su ien’r for drawing inferencg fhat The agpelhnf was “the. per-sen whaz; has ad igfered poisrsn. Learned caunse! fur?her gubmi?s fhai" the canvhrrim is based an ex+m judi cenfe$sian mwe By The appeEzm'!‘ 1’0 'i'he Latifnesseg which are m1” reliabie and dges m? inspire canfidence. ”r the et.er ham, learned State csunse! sugaperted fhe imgsugned judgmen? and argued “the“? The semiaian is based en extra judicial confession made by fee appe§!ent t9 differen'!‘ 'wimesses whHe cawabamted by fhe diseiosure ef pa'isan a? fhe instance 0f the appeiiani within two deyi of fhe incidem. The evigience adduced an behaif of the praseeLfim-s is sufficien‘s’ for drawing inference That fhe appellant is. the ergo?! wha baa admiaistered aaisan. O‘ f. m . c J i D. in order i9 apprgdata the arguments advanced on beha!f 0f thg par‘HM we. hex/2 axamined The. matreriai adduced on behalf of flag pwsecu+inn In Tha presm‘t maze, unngfum§ death as a resuh' 9f p0§3ening 9f fha ecewed Sarju, Shari" Bai, Injwiya and Nanka has not bezn subsmrz?ia!¥y éispmgd, on fhea o+har hand also e$mbli<hw4 by the evidencz 01F DrJKBhumni (PW-10), aufopsy re r‘rs ExsRQé, PI?R PJZQ ‘md P/31 and madica! exam?m?ian repgr? Ex.P,/32 which rewa! fhni’ emoimn insecticide (mgano Qmspereus) was faund in visczm of 'rha afgresaid daceased persans. A; regands fha camplici'h,’ 9f fhe aecusad/appalhnf in The crima in quesiign, the pregame 6f the ap§e!!am at fhe time 9f insidzn? Le, when fhe ézaaxd §§er$ans cansumed liquor is n9? dispufe‘d‘ Liquér wag brought 1W ‘rhe dammed Shan'ri 303 from The howsa of Gangapurihn‘ Liquar ha< bean. saizeti vida ExPli‘? and same was sen? for chemical nnaiysis and rapnr‘r Ex.P!Z§ reyeais fhe? no damacmn inseaticida i- mam» K J pnwpemus) was present. Th2, convicfign is based an axfm judicial annfessian 0f The agpeiiani madg To @nngnmm (PW-1), Veem Ram (PW- 3), Birbai (?W‘-4) and Triveni {PW-é) £10ngnmm (PW—1) has degnsed in his ayitiancg ting? trim: appeiinn‘i made discinsura siatemenf tha? liqunr was bmugh? fmm ihe hnusa 9f Gangnpuriha and demacmn was added in ‘ihe iiquar, iherefnrei she has not Taken iiqum‘ and oiher nersons wok iiquoru In para 7 9f his nmss‘axaminm’ion, he has specifically admitted hay? decewed Ska-211i Eai has bronght iiqunr‘ fmm ‘the house of 5nnga§uriimv Ezem Ram {PW-3) inns dgnnsgd in hi$ evidence fimf fha angeiian‘? has made disciesure. sfafemgn‘!’ 's‘hai' she has added. demnnmn in ‘i’he, liquor, and Thereby fnur persans disd, bm in his cress—zxamimfion . he has degcsed That ‘ihe apimeiidni has made exh'n. judicia! cmfessinn befdre the neiice. The evidence 9f fhis witness minding To exim judiaiai - cenfessien made 5y she dpgieiienf is net ddmissihie in evidence and is hi1- bv Secfiens 2§, 26 and 2.7 0f The Evidence Act hn r . a gA a ‘ 4. $ I { £2009 AIQ SCW 3730 J22009 AIR $6M! 752 Eirba? {mfg-4) has depmed in his {avideme That he: saw daad bedy 92F Nanka, #hgri he asked the appalan‘!‘ The? as To hpw he died, fhzn the appellan'ir mld hm tha'!‘ she had addgd paisan in The liquor censumed by descvawagf‘ Nanka. Trivzni {PW-6) has; éepo‘éd in his eavideme that? ‘emmrmn was in passassien 91F The appeHanf and she mada riisclesure sfgfemm? Thai she has added demecmn in fhe hquor which faur persans cshsumad gin-:1 finaiiy hwy died. In para 3 he has specifically diapnsad +ha+ when they came from Ambikapur af?er pasfmar‘i'em 0f fgur danri viHEga mid ihwrmgai’ed ms appeiiam, bu? fhe appeiian? herself hns i £ a hadies, ihen The appaiiam Toid ham Thai she has added demncmn in giassas 0f a?! That dacaassd ami has added one air-0p ii: each, glass. In para 9 Qg‘ his ‘ cross—examénmion' he has smted Thai.- ‘i'he pciitza came. 'l‘o steed This? she hasadded demacmn. Exim judicisi confsssitgn is generally a weak type of evidence, bui- once if is {greyed ‘i’e be “true, fhen same may be sufficienf far eonvietion of the messes. While sealing wifh the evidenfiary value 9f exfm-judiciel cohfessiee mae’e Lieder $ec‘ri0n Z4 0f ‘i‘he Evidence Ac‘t, fhe Apex Caur-T 'n fh (l) maf‘rer sf Baldev Singh V. ‘ 5E1: af Punjab: has . aid that exfmn jud.cial confessinn is generally of weak wee of evidence. N- cenvie‘rian ardinarilx/ can he eased saleiv i ‘l‘hereu iian unless sam.e is cerrabo.“ai'ed in mes-e rial earficulars. “i; While deaiing wish the same ques‘i'ian, The Apex Caurt in fhe matfer af #iahd. Azad @ $amii’: V. Smie cf Wes? Eer‘ala has held ‘rha? if exfraa judieiel cenfession made valunfarily and ii-uih in a fi'l sfa‘i‘e 0f mind then it can be relied agan and eonfessinn wiil nave to prove like in any a'lher evidence. Para 22 af The said judgment reads as under:- “22. An extm-jadieial confession, if voiun‘rary and True and made in a fi‘r sfare of mind; can be relied upon by The couri‘. The confessian wili have "ro be grovea‘ iike any Iikz any ather evidemz, dzperds upen we. vernci‘h/ 0f fha wifness To Wham i? has been mada. The vaiue of The aviéence 0.5 +0 '?§'2e cenfassim depands an fhe reiiability of The wi‘rnass who gives fne evidence. I“? is no? open 'i'o any cour‘i +0 swr? wiJrh £1 pres‘ump‘?io:i fhuf exfm-juu'iciQE canfessien is a wank type 0f evidance. I? wguid degagnd en fhe nufure of: the draumsmnces. ‘fhe Time when The cem‘essim was made and 'i’he aradibiii‘ry 9f the witnessas who speak “to such a confassion. Such a confession can be reiied upon ‘r‘ne convici’icn can be "Faunded fhereon i‘r r i‘ne 1 widens-ta (lbw? the confa£sion came$ from the maufh 9f wi'rnesses who appear- ‘ro Se unbiased. no? even remo‘reiy inimiccxi 1‘0 ‘hhe accused, cmd M re$peci‘ of whom iwa’rWiag is ‘41s? bmugh‘r ou? wh§ch may 12nd 1’0 iac3icazfe Thaf he may have. 15. While deaEng with the. same. question, fha Apex. Cour? in the matter of Smfe of Panjab v. Har3agdev Einghs has ha§d fha‘.‘ wary indacamam, fhraa‘r or promise dogs no? vi'fis'rs q aonfession. Normaily exTm‘Judicin! com‘awzian ES a weak fype. of evidence and shsil no? be relied uggn wi‘mou? aormbsmfion from other sources furfha? ,‘,._ i 16. In the presen? sass, 6wgamm (i’W-l) has only deposed in his avidencg Thaf irhz appelhn’r has no? consumed Equor b‘ecause dzmecmn was added in The Iiquon Beam Dam (PW-3) has spéc§fi¢ai§y dapased in pars 4 of his avidence that thg sppeiiem has made exfm judicial confession bzfore The p‘giice cmd no? before- him, therefore his evidence is of no use. Birbai (L9W—4) inns deposed in his evidgnne fhe'i' 'the. oppaiiant made ..- stafemenf iha‘!’ ska has scidad poison in the iiquor and as s reSLH' cfdrinking of soisgnous !iqamr, Noam died Thz avidencs of Triveni (.PW-é) reveais fhm’ when shay earns after sosf—morfem of all i'ha $2009 AIR SCW 4133 W a mofive of u'rfribufina an unfrufhfui sfa‘temenf +o fhe accusad,‘?he words spoker: To by 1*}18 WETriess are cigar, unambiguous and unmisfaka‘aly convey find the amused is §he perpefra‘ror of fhe crime and nof’hing is omiffed‘ by "rhe wifnes‘E which may mi‘ii‘o‘ha agains’r if. Affer subje-cfhg fhe eviéenge. m? The w§fnz$s 1'0 a rigorous tesf on The touchsnne of credibiiify, ?he exTm-judiciai. confession ccm be dccep‘rea‘ ana‘ can be f‘ne basis of canwc‘tioa if ii: passes ths test of credibiliiy" ‘ , deceggad persms, 14w?! the appglmn'r made. extra judicial canfession *n mm Thai sha ha$ added dzmgcmn in fha !iquar, bu? in para 9 of hi< crnc<~ exgmim‘rion, he has dzpesed fim'r he .as stated To me palica +ha+ +h2 agpailam has made exfm judibm! canfe$si9n #hcd’ she. has addad we dmp demecmn in each ghss, but fhis fact does not find in his sfawmem Ex.D/1 racordad under- Section 1&1 9f trim Cgdz. He has also dkgnseri Hm? 'ihe appeiian? aisn used f0 ”rake: iiqum, but on that day shz did nn+ fgke iiquar. This is the casz 9f dea‘ih 9f four persons, as a r'MHH’ ef samocran poison and prgsence 9f demacmn is canfirmed by she ragsnr‘r of thg Ewensic Science Lrbamfwy, Rgipur yids Ex.P./32 in \Iiscam ef +ive fpur decwseii‘snd view")! can canfaining smnii quantiTy of iiquer. Wing rémsacu‘iimi has aisa addugd evidance reia‘i'ing To recovery 9* remaining par? of damocrm and bar-Hie. at The instance 9f The anneilnn+ ‘i‘f‘ 5ub Iaspecmr VIN.Singh {PW-9) has riwased in his evidence +im‘i'hv has infermga‘i'ed the appeiiam 9n 22102002 afier‘ inking her ima ms‘mriy Suhe. has maids. disriasure. siaizmen? fhe'r she has buried bof‘He under henem, free wade? soii and same was recorded by him vide hx P/R He Mew slang with ‘ihe wifnesses and fhe eepeiiani’i the appellan‘i' exhumerl The beffie 9f democran containing same drop 0f iiquid fram the soii Which he has seized from The appeiieni‘ vide Ex.?/9i Jamuno. (PW-7) has eorrobemfed the fsc‘mm of disciasureirsm‘i'emen‘i given by ‘i‘he appeiinn‘i' ané reeevxv 9f beifie 93F demoemn at? the instance of The elapeiian‘r in his evidence. The defence has crass-examined Birba! (PW-4) and Jamuha (PW-7) in defaii, bL, . as neT been abie ‘i’a elici'i' an\l+hina in their crass- examinafian ta discredit? fheir i‘esfimany relating ta factum of disclosure statement and reeavery at battie at ciemacran at the instance of the appetianti Bat. the witnesses have admitted that the piace tram where 4. he appeiiant exhumed battle at demoeran was apen kitchen garden and insectieide is usuaiiy found n the house-at the viiiagers. It reveals tram the evidence of Birbai (PW-4) and gamana (PW—7) that bottle afl t p4 I1‘ o ‘ “'l" Wme% ‘r \ “I' ‘ ” J a‘l‘ if; .18. In order 1'9 attrac? 111a provisians Th9 hm i‘" r ”QM mam pm’w mlv n9? 11115111511 ‘Hne knowledcm nf ‘tha myes+ma+mn m‘flcer av- 1‘arh dwaosed was such 11F m‘hxrv Whlch was enlv in the knowledga nf “w ncrusad and was nnf w1+hm +119 kmwlad P f Q‘Hwr parsans ¥rnm wham awaymafmn affmor' mav rerplw sLrh mfarma'hon. in? ‘g 0* While déaiing 11.1%?! fhe ques‘rion of evidén'riary value ef disck‘rsura sL-ratamem givan by the accused undar 515511911 27 cf the Evidanca Act, We Apm M‘ 'n ?‘~e ma“e. 9f Ks ‘1 § “h v “m4“ cf U P 4 Has +hn+ i413 prns gufign m r' a grad +n prgwp +ha+ ‘l'hp fgc+< Algrlnsad mac my? wwhm +he knnwfadgg o +119 pnllrp hmg?‘ 1'9 ”ch disrlgsu g stgfgmggf gwea E“; The accused. 20. WM? daghng wl‘rh he s ma q; <1'10n, fhe Apex Cour"? in fhz mafia?- of Thimma v. T e. S‘a‘e e‘ .‘e%"sare5 7 has “39d *‘A 1' discever-ed from arrher seurces 1hare can be n0 fresh discavery even if ”levnn'r mFnrrna'i'mn 1s 9xfrwc+ed 4mm ‘Hw a” d1 Reievon'f mm of the ‘mA Jigt’g gnf rggds as undpn' 7"10“....u..,..0ne Mae a fog? is ‘discaw f 0m n+h9r smlrrv< ‘rhere can be no fresh discaver'v eve 1" re§evanf mformaTIon is eX‘rmCTed :rom i116 uccu$ed ma nouws have ‘10 be wmcnmi agmns+ 14v? mgenunw 9f the mveswgahng Qffmar m fh1$ respec? so ‘l’haf fhe profecfion affordeci by ‘i'he whoiesome provisions of Secfions 25 and 26 of i’he Indim': Evidence Ac? is n9? whifiiad down by +he mere manipuia?ion of The recerd of case diary............H 2-. \VWhiie dggiing wifh fhe same questian, The. Ape-X Caur‘!‘ in the matter of ‘ Jaffsr Hmam Damagw v T"a§ $‘a‘e a ma..arc-£z 6 has haw Tim? 1f } 1119??) 3 scc 662 ¥5AIR 29m sc 1871 fAIQ 1970 5c 1934 bnrmha free Ham krrrhwl 9f Sectian Z7 9f the Evidance Aa‘t, secm‘ion. 1< ranuired ah .n nu? Tho? +he Fnc‘r dlsc'n‘vd by +imb r. mm» ”$5 r the facts am 1M£fhin fhe knowledge Qf The police, fhen discloszur m‘ smmmem‘ 9f i'he accu5zd is inadmissib!a in Terms 0f §arftim ?7 of the Evidence Act. 22. Whae dea§§ng MW?! the questian 9f the ping fmm where: fact? digclawd i": weaver-ed, the Apex (Jour'r in 1412, mah‘er of Mgvm‘é Rama Nazik v. 51am 5.£ niahamshma I + 7 has “aw L. u #ha? recovery sf arficis from 'Hna phca which was easiiy assessabie by other peopie and Thai“ for: affer 9 dayg 0f ‘rhe. i.fident weuld m? a? :11! b2 éafficien‘t To basa a. conviction withouf further accepfable carmbem‘rion. Reievam {Jam 9f The said judgmenf u ’6 reads as under:- “7 ............The 0n!y other piece 0f evidence rel§ed by The ‘ £ prasecution ‘ro suppor? i‘rs case against These fwo appeiian‘rs is If 1"‘na’r of recovery which even accordMg 'h) prosecuffon, was made from a piece which wastnat in. The exclusive pessessidn of The appeiian‘rs and The said piece was easiiy accessibie by oiher peopie and aiso ”file fac‘r ‘i‘i‘mi‘ recovery was made aimosi' 9 days effer the inciden‘!‘ in quesfian, in our uninicn r I This rniece of evidence aiso wouid mi a? eii be s‘ufficien‘i’ To base a convie‘rion 9f +hese appeiiayife wi'ihou't further eceegmbie corroboration. Therefore, we are of The opinian 1ha‘i These appeais musi succeed............ .. 23. Tn i'he gresen'r case, admitH‘ediy, kifchen garden was open piece, bu? baitie of demeemn was mt? iying in cpen piece it was hidden end buried and afier exhuming from ‘i'he soil iiwas reeevered on The basis of” diseiosure siafemeni.‘ made by the appellant If clearly shows flam- boftle of democmn was hidden under tilde soii ond was recovered on the basis of disclossre sTasement made by the oopellan'i. The defence has not suggestd anything i'o show ihai' This fact was wi'i'hin the knowledge of foe police or other persons prior fo disciosure sfafemen‘i‘ made by the appellant In these circumstances, recovery of bottle of demooran on the l basis of disclosure statement made by the appellant from hidden place is admissible in terms of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. AIR 2003 SC 3884 perusoi of p.oros r 3 ohd 4 of the evidenee of girbai (9W-4\ \ I! it reveais that $AIR 1979 sc 1949 l i L i i i l 11 é? (2) $he had fhe knowkdge Qf fag phLe whgre if wa§hiddga BJT m gmsumpfion ran be drawn on the. basis 9f recovery of baf‘thz. a? the insmnce of disciosurg yammen? of the. appellant 'rha'!‘ t.e appalign't was author of the crime. 254 The Apex Court in fhe matfzrr of ,PQMWa Mawa VQM v. 5mm of %A&h;grash?m8 ha haki fhaf whare he Enformai‘icn iad 1's discksure of waapan 6f flag affenm, i? was capabEe 9f Twe interpretations Le. (1) he iémS who conceded 26. fie gerson conceded fine weapcn, er (2) trim? ha had fhe- knowledge of The place where it was hidden. Heme, the accused eouid» nim‘ be convicfed for murder en the beeis 9f sueh informaiion. Seized batiie of demgcren caniaining some iiquid was sen? for chemical examination and presenee of democrqn inseci‘i‘cide (er-gene prespereus) was cwfirmeei byjhe Ferensic $cien_e Lebareforyl Reipur vide ifs reefer? ExP/32. The Ferensic 5cience Lebem‘l’ory has aise cenfirmed ihe ereeenee of demeemn and eighy! gicehe! in. viscera of the aforesaid four deceased persons. Oh the basis of aforesaid report, it may be presumed that b..ttie of demoeren was cont ing demoeran insecticide (orgahoq phosphorous) and the some we- aiso tound in viscera of the aforesaid f- ur deceased persons“ n‘ 27. As regareis extra judiciai confession of the appeiiant is concerned, the evidence of Eirha! (PW-4) and Triveni {PW-é) reiating to extra judicial confession made by the appe!!ant to them are uncheilenged in their evidence and further corroborated by the evidence of Triveni that the appeilont was in habit of drink iiquor, but on that doy she did not drink liquor which finds suoeort from the evidence of Gangaram (PW-1). From ‘ ‘ i . ‘ J { I 5 k gAIR 1960 SC 659 ’ mAIQ 1984 SC 1622 12 "5- ingredienfs ngcessgry to prove guii’!’ .a appeiign? rafus-d i'o drink !iquor on The. ground that democmn was arided i. t.e Hquarw In case of adminisfmiion of poisan for cammission 9f murder, fha Agex Cour-f in fhe ma?fer .‘achan v 5mm m‘ U??ar Pradeshg has haid 1’ h feilowing fhraa accused/appeliant:- (1) Whwher fhe person died 9f the poi$on in ql Ia<+ian? (2) Whe'ther The accused was in possess.e. of poison? (-3) Whathe-r the accused was having an eppérmni‘ry 1'9 aciminister fhe goison in quesficn to the deceased? Pam 8 of the said judgment raads as under:- “8‘ The ieamed advocate fer ”the nppeilant has first " contended that the conviction is wrong in iaw in View of the decision of this Court in Dharambir Singi‘a v. The State of Punjab, Cri App. Nov 98 of 195$ {SC} That was a. ease of murder by poisoning. It was ti'iere said: “Three oLestions arise in aii such ooses, viz, (fir-stiy), did ti'ied‘eceased die of the poison in question? (secondiy), had the accused the poison in question in his possession? and (thirdly), had the amused on opportunity to administer the poison in question to the deceased? Therefore, oiong with the motive, the prosecution has uiso to establish that the deceased died of a portieuiar poison said to have been administered, that the accdsed was in possession of that poison and that he had the opportunity to administer the some to the deceased........;i" Whiie dealing with the same question, the Apex Court in the matter of shsrod Birdhichand Sara‘s v. state of Maharashtra“ has heid that in the oases of murder by administration of poison the Court must carefu!!y scan The evidence and determine the four imparmn? ,v r r circumsmn-gs which ekme can jusfify a conviction: (1i there is a clear motive for an aecused to administer poison £ to the deoeo.-ed i j ; ‘ 13 @ (2) thm’ the deceased died 93F