HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR (Di^dsion Bench) 1—^- CORAM: Hon'ble Sh»iVijay Kumar Shrivastava 8s Hoa^ble Shri Dhfareadra Mishra, JJ. CRIMINAL APPBAL No. 440/2000 Appellaiat (In Jail) Respoadesit Sodi Chamani, S/o Gan.ga Muriya, R/o Village Chopel, P.8.- Sukraa, Distt Dantewada Vs. State of Chhattisgarh PRESENT Shri Abhay Tiwad, counsel for fhe appeUaat. Shri AkhU Mishra, Paael Lawyer for respondent/State, JUDGMBNT (Datedon 29.3.2006) Pey Viiav Kumar Shrivastava, J< This appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criiniaal Procedure is directed agaiast fhe judgnient of coiwiction aad order of sentence dated 10.12.1999 passed by III Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur ia Sessions Trial No. 146/99 where.by learaed Additional Sessions Judge, after holdiag the appeUant guUty for committing offence pnnishable uuder Sectioa 302 offhe I.P,C., sentenced hiin to undergo imprisonnient for life aad to pay a fine ofRs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousaad), ia default ofpaynient offine to fLrrther undergo R.I. for one year 2) AppeUaat aad deceased beiag husbaad and wtfe were living togetiier. On 10.1.1999 about 9 P.M. at night, appeUaat ^r carae under iatoxication and asked for ineal. Deceased Sodi Siikudi refused to serve nieal, aUegiag fhat you always cooie dnink at night. AppeUant got enraged aiid assaulted her with wooden club who received miiltiple iajuries aad succuinbed to it. Oii fhe next day, a Panchayat was convened and appellaiit before Paachayat confessed his guUt, Sodi Siikda elder brother of fhe appellaat reported the niatter to Police. On his rcport nierg iatiiaation aad First Information Report were recorded. The niatter was itivestigated, spot map was preparcd, blood stamed earfh aad control earfh were coUected aad thereafter fhe dead body was sent for postmorteni. Dr. Devendra Krisan conducted the postoiortexn who ia his report described the iajuries foiiad over fhe body of fhe deceased and opiaed fhat cause of deafli was straiigulation aiid death was hoinicidal in natLire. The wooden club seized from fhe appeUaat was exainiaed by fhe medical officer who after exasiiination, opiaed that fhe iajuries found on fhe body of Sodi Sukudi may be caused by fhe wooden cliib so seized. Witaesses were examiaed under Section 161 ofCr.P.C. After coinpletion of tavestigation, challan under Section 302 of I.P.C. against fhe appeUaat was fiiled in fhe Court ofJudicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Sukiaa who coinmitted the case to fhe court of Sessions for tdal. 3) Charge under Section 302 of fhe I.P.C. was frained agaiast fhe appellant and fhe saaie was read over aad explamed to him who abjured fhe guUt and pleaded fhat he is ianoceut aad has been falsely iaipUcated ui fhe case. Learaed trial Court after evaluatiiig the evidence on recgrdheld fliat fhe deafh of deceased ^- was homicidal in nature aad appeUant was author of fhe criaie, accordiagly appeUaat was convicted aad sentenced. '^- 4) AppeUant did not chaUenge fhe uijuries found on fhe body of deceased (Sodi Sukidi) and also did not challenge fhe nature of the death which is honiicidal in nature. Even ofherwise from. fhe statenient of Dr. Devendra Krishaa (PW/ 1) aud autopsy report Ex. P-1, it has been established that foUowiag inj'uries were found on fhe body of deceased, the cause of deafh was due to strangulation, aad fhe death was homicidal ui nature. Extemeil Exandnations <sl. Abrasion' tivo abrasion mark seen in left lateral side oflowerpart ofchest equal in, size I" x4v 2. Contusion' On rruddle part ofback ofneck size 2stx3s. 3, Abrasion- on foacfe oflefi elbowjoint 4. Congestion offront ofneck. Interncd Exeiminatlan! 3rd and 4th ceruical vertebra and thyroid cartilage were found.fractured. 5) Mudharam (PW/2) and Sodi Kosa (PW/3) have deposed fhat a laeetiag was held ia fhe vUlage, where appeUant was called and questioned. AppeUaiit before Panchayat stated fhat his wtfe did not serve him raeals, therefore, he pushed her. Mudharam (PW/2) flirther stated fhat appeUant also stated fhat she feU down over wood aiid died. Erra (PW/5) ia his statenient ^ stated fhat when fhey enqziired froni the appeUant, he disclosed that deceased was not serviag him nieal, fherefore, he assaulted her. He also deposed that ui appellaat's hoiise only appeUmit aiid his wife (deceased) were Uviag. Podiya (PW/6), ia his stateinent deposed fhat appeUaat was Uviiig ia his house acconipaaied wifh his wtfe (deceased) aad two sinaU kids. 6) Alth.ongh Erra (PW/5) has at one place denied fhe evidence of extra judicial confession niade by the appeUaat, therefore, fhe evidence of extra jzidicial coufession made by hiai caanot be accepted to be true until supported by oflier sozirces, Froni niedical report, it is evident that the iajiiries werc foiind on various parts of fhe body. Froni the statenient of Dr. Devendra Krishaa (PW/ 1), it is also evident fhat tih.e iajtuies may be caused by wooden club. It is also estabUshed that the deceased died due to strangulation. The defence of fhe appellaat before tihte Paachayat was that he pushed his wtfe who feU down as a result of which she died. Knowiagly false defence has been taken by him. This itsetf is an uicriaiuiatmg circumstaace agaiast fhe appeUaat. It has also been estabUshed tliat ia fhe said house only appellant along wifh his wife - Sodi Sukudi (deceased) aad two sniall kids were liviag. In fhe night appellaat <^ame aad asked for meals to his wtfe (deceased) who refused to serve hmi meals aad ia his presence she received niultiple injuries. AU fhe above circunistan.ces are con'oboratiag fhe evidence of extra judicial confession niade by flie appeUaat ia presence of Erra (PW/5), fherefore, his evideuce on extra judicial confession made by fhe appeUanUsj'eUable. WSKSQ 7) Iri cases of circunistantial evidence iaference of guUt caa be recorded if atl fhe uicruxiuiating facts aad circum.stan.ces are found to be iaconipatible witii fhe ianocence of fhe accused or titie guUt of aay otlier person. Law on extra jiidicial confession has also been settled and according to it if extra judicial confession is clear, cogent and appear to have been made ia nonnal course wifhout aay pressure fliat can be acted upon. -' ^' . 8) Here ta fhe iastaat case, Erra (PW/5) is one of fh.e viUagers haviiig no anisiizis wifh fhe appeUaat who corroborated fhe fact of extra judicial confession niade by ttie appeUant His stateinent is duly siipported by various ofher evidence as stated above aiid is reliable. On flie fateful day, appeUant aad his wtfe deceased Sodi Sukdi were iaside fhe house. Sodi Sukdi died ia presence of appellaat as a result of strangulation aad her deafh was hoinicidal ia natzire. She died uiside fhe house. AppeUaat before Paachayat adiaitted fhe fact fhat he asked for nieal and his wife deceased Sodi Sukdi did not provide it, fherefore, he pushed her. AppeUaat also adniitted that his wtfe Sodi Sukdi died in-side fhe house aad ia his presence. From. aU fhe cu'cum.staaces aiid evidence of exfara judicial confession only iaference which can be drawn is that the appellant is fhe aufhor of fhe crune who killed his wife Sodi Sukdi Therefore, it was estabUshed that Sodi Sukdi, the wtfe of the appellaiit was assaulted by fhe appellaat who not only assaulted her but also kiUed her by straagulation. 9) Leamed counsel for fhe appeUant relyuig on fhe judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court la Rasijha 8s aaother Vs. State of Puajab, rep^rted in 1996 (6) Supreme 364, ^ contended that appeUaat as a result of sudden provocation aad in. a spiir of monient, wifhout haviag aay uitention, assaulted his wife, fherefore, his case falls under Section 304 part 2 of the I.P.C. We are afraid to accept fhe contention because here ia fhe iastaxit case appellant not only kUled his wife by strangulation but also iaflicted niultiple injuries on her, she received grievous isijuri.es i.e., fracture of 3rd ao.d 4th ceivical vertebra and fhyroid cartilage. In the Ught of injuiies found over fhe body of fhe deceased aiid fhe nianner ia which her death was caused fhat itself is sufficient to establish that flie appellant iatentionaUy and knowiagly kiUed his wtfe brutally. 10) Iu the. result, we are offhe considered opiaion fhat fhe learaed Court below convictuig aad sentencuig fhe appeUant for coininittiiig murder of his own wife Sodi Sukudi punishable under Section 302 of fhe IPC., has not conimitted any illegality which niay call for aay interference. 11) The appeal falls aad is dismissed. ^s ^—^ Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge 29/03/2006 Sd/- Dhirendra MEishra Judge 29/03/2006 kvr.