“(x 0 ate of receipt in ppliate Court—g D g A ? w: W* { u CF0000059006 lllHllll r ”i W w \‘mp ~C 4mmy$g .74__ Name Fathcr s name ——&£m_&r%—&———#—~————-—._-_____._¥ V..__ Resldencew&wiapaxge __$_Qfm_7_*va__‘¥ A“ .1 Sentenced uAw 6‘ C; \Q __*__ u ¥ r sectidill tog __,z2 Amy gd __ r gig; ’i .......z.§.z/,£/................................. s explained to ‘the prisoner that if he states or wishes to be represented b‘. a legal “ ctiticner the Appelate Court will nct proceed with the base fer seven 623's u . - ”A legal practmoner appears If the legal practitioner idoes not apgilir will: m seven days! he may not be heard at all If the prisoner states that he does 116* “islw to be the at With the and represented by legal practitioner court may pioceed at onCL tasc Will not be oblige‘d to give a hearing to any legal practitioner who hould appear l l l 1‘ Date (if Application for copy of Judgement v< , 2 v Date of which copy recewed ————§—cf—3—‘l¢=~~~~~~~'«———— i 3 Date on which Appeal sent ———~——/—o— g £2v—m——~—————————~ —»~ r~ i; i‘ ‘n/ , 4 v Whet er the prisoner Wishes to be represented or not ~ Yes/N . ,1 ‘/ yr, l i, p gyrtwdgs“ H__———~— ———Name—— ééoK _ ._..'_ ______ Continued iri~—— [m 4 l :tled ti x ‘ Nor' AL £0 i Q‘ y 198—————.—— Forwar—de—d to the EI;;F JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE JQQQ JUDICIAL ~~~~~. to gather With a copy of Judgement or order passed in tli case for izn ur c‘ transmrssmnlto the proper Appilliate Court i, ~ e Date of receipt in C J M lS 0%“ Date of receipt of record to accompany——————~————~*~~-——~—— ——e—— Memo of Appeal of the Appeliate Court ~——__———— ~~~~~~~—A~——~— l No % L J \zL ov‘ ed_e24__:t_ ig'g::__ .o“eee..e F'o/Varde the é a \ é‘fX—b’VéQ— {\k ‘Q;I g3: , c5 to the e ’V t VA/ l C.J‘Ma‘gistra M HIGH COU‘RT OF CHHATTISGARH : BELASPUR CRIMINL APPEAL NO. 584 OF 1992 m A Mohar Sai Vs. State 3f Chhattisgarh . J U D G M E N T i ‘QDated 26th July, 2W5} EFT-i COURT OF CHEATTISGARH : nlLASPUR CRIMINAL A?PEAL NO. 584 OF 1§§2 Mohar Sai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh CORAM : HON’BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, J 3% HON’FilE SHRT biLT? RAOSAHEB DESiiM‘EjKI-L J’ Shri Shashank Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Shri J‘é Bajpai, Govt. Advocate/Adm. Pub‘lic Prosecutor and Shri g Sachm Singh Rajput, Panel Law§er for the State. A a Per Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J J U D G M E E T (Bated 26th July, 2005) Heard. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment delivered in Sessions Case No.151/1991 by Sm‘i MP. Sahlam, Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, on 6—4- 1992 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal d Code for committing murder of his Wife Amso Bai‘on 18-7— 199 l in village Bankaruma, Charkhapara, Police Station Pathalgaon and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.200[ —, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months 5) »:a 3‘ Admittedly deceased Amso Bai was the wife and Aganesu P.VV.2 is the son of the accused/appellant. 4. Briefly stated the prosecution story is that in the morning of 19-7— 1991 the appeliant informed his son Aganesu, P.W.2 that he € had ki‘lied Amso Bai inside the house by lathif On this information, Aganesu, P.W.2 went with the appeilant to his house and saw the dead body of Amso Bai lying in a room with biood oozing out from her head and also spread on the fioor. On seeing this Aganesu, P.W.2 called Mansingh, P.W.3, Kartiko, P.W.4 and Kuma‘t‘ bas, RW. l to the house of the accused]appeilant. These witnesses also came and saw the dead bodysof Amso Bai. On being asked by Kumar Das, RW. 1, Aganesu, P.W.2 and Mansingh, P.W.3, the appellant told them that Amso Baivwas a habitual drunkard and would not give liquor for his consumption, therefore, he had killed Amso Bai. M» u‘v. 5, First Information Report was lodged by Kumar Das, RW. 1, in Police Station Pathalgaon, Vide EXP] l. investigating Onicer Shri Mukesh Khare, Sub hispector, reached the spot and’made the inquest Vide EX.P/' 11(a) on the body of the deceased. The dead‘ body was sent for “post mortem in éthe evening of 19—7—1991. Post mortem was conducted by Dr. G.K. Verma, PW. l3, on 20~7- 199 l who found the following external injuries : a i) Lacerated wound over skull 4” above the ' f‘loreneadsize h 4" X 1/2” x bone deep. ii) Anterior to post fontanelle lacerated wound size 4" ‘x 1/2” x bone deep, iii) Just lateral to injury No.2 lacerated wound transversely placed size 5" X 112” with hacture of temporal bone left side. 6. In the opinion of Dr. Verma cause of death was shock and haemorrhage due to injuries sustained by the deceased on chest and head. The Doctor opined that death was homicidal in nature. 0 The weapon of assault i.e. one lathi was handed over by the appellant to Kumar Das, P.W.l after making extra judicial confession was seized from Kumar Das vide EXP/2. After completion of investigation the accused was prosecuted for cgmmitting murder of Ain‘sc Bai under Section 302 of the Indian. Penal Code. '7. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and claimed trial. _ The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. Learned trial On dissection huge hemotoma was prsscnt on the Dura Mater. iv) Lacerated wound, skull about 5" aboveg the right ear, transversely placed size 2" x 1/2” X bone deep. V) Lacerated wound upper part of right ear 3" x 1/2” X cutted through. vi) Lacerated wound right Cheek below maxilla 2” X ‘lé" X 1/4 ". V l vii) Black eye 6f right eye with contusion on ri“ 1t cheek 4” X 1/2”. viii) Contusion over an area of 6’; over the t ri@t chest with fracture of 5th, 6m, 7m and 8th rib over the mid clavicular line with huge blood present over the right thoracic cavity. ix) Contusion over the left chest over an area of 4". X) Contusion over left thigh on the upper part, vertically placed size 6” x 1” red in colour. Judge relying upon the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the appellant before P.W.1 Kumar Das, P.W.2 Aganesu and G P.W.3 Mansingh as alsothe post mortem report given by Dr. GK. Verma, P.W.l3, came to the conclusion that homicidal death of Amso Bai was caused intentionally by the appellant and convicted the appellant under Section 302. of the Indian Penai Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life. a“; i 8. Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, has mainly contended in this appeal that the evidence relating to extra judicial confession made by the appellant does not inspire confidence. He further argued that the small stick seized vide ~ EXP/'2, used as a weapon of offence, could not have caused the death of Amso Bai. He also argued that RWJZ Aganesu who had some grudge had falsely implicated the appellant. 9. On the other hand, Shri Bajpai, learned Govt. Advocate/'Addl. Public Prosecutor and Shri Rajput, learned Panel Lawyer, have supported the judgment of learned trial Court and w argued that evidence led by the prosecution brings home the guilt under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code beyond doubt against the appellant. 100. ‘So far as the evidenee led by the prosecution relating to extra judicial confession made. by the appellant is concerned, it has to be tested on the touchstone of two questions, firstly whether the confession was made voluntarily or was obtained by a iKi coercion, inducement or promise of favour and secondly Whether the evidence relating to extra judiciai confession is reliable. G l 1. In the case of Gura Singh vs. State of Raiasthan reported in i200i)‘ 2 SC‘C‘ 205 the Apex Court held as under : “Extrajudiciai confession, If true and volunta, , it can be relied upon by the court ta convict the accused for the commission of the crime alleged, , Despite in Lere. i weakness of exirafudicial confession as an item of evidence, it cannet be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who has no reason to state falsely and to whom it is made in the circumstances which‘tena‘ to support the statement. That the evidence in the form of extrajudicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot be always ten ea to be a tainted evidence. Corroboration of such evidence is required only by way of abundant caution, If the court believes the witness before whom the confession is made and is satisfied that the confession was true and voiuntariiy made, then the conviction can be founded on sue evidence atone. It is not open to the court trying the criminal case to start with a presumption that extrajudiciai confession is always a weak type of evidence. It wont“ 11A} depend on the nature of the circumstances, the time whenthe confession is made gnd the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession. ” 1. 12. The testimonv of PfW’‘JZ Aganesu, the son of the appellant, ciearly shows that it was the accused/appellant who came to his house and informed that he had killed Amso Bai by a lathi whereupon he went to the house of the accused/appellant and saw the dead body of his mother inside the house of the appellant. This circumstance that the dead bodv of Amso Bai was found lying inside the house of the accused/appellant is also a strong w.‘ circumstance which in the absence of any expianation whatsoever goes against the accusedjappeflant. True, that P.w.2 Aganesu, in G para 4 of his cross:examination has admitted that he lives separately from his father, since both of them did not go alongwell but this is no ground to reject the otherwise reliabie testimony of this Witness as he would not like to falsely implicate his father for causing the death of his mother Amso Bai. Besides, the testimony of PWI Aganesu finds corroboration from the testimony of RW. l Kumar Das and P.W.3 Mansingh, which shows that when they reached the house of the accused/appellant with P.W.'2 Aganesu, the accused/appellant had told them that he had killed his wife Amso Bai by a lathi since she used to consume liquor alone and would not give to him. l3. We have gone through the testimony of RW. l Kumar Das, P.W.'2 Aganesu and P.W.3 Mansingh and are satisfied that the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the accused] appellant was voluntary, trustworthy and was rightly relied on by Q the learned trial Judge. g. 14. In the examination of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused has also not. given any explanation whatsoever as to how Amso Bai, who was living with him had sustained number of injuries inside the house. ":i-x 1:). So far as the contention of Shri Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant, that the weapon of offence seized was a small u stick and could not have caused the death of Am’so Bai is concerned, we flnd that Dr. Verma, P.W.l3 in his testimonv has nowhere g‘ven a positive opinion about this in cross—examination. The injuries sustained by the deceased Amso Bai as mentioned in the post mortem report EXP] 14 clearly go to show that the deceased had sustained as many as ten injuries over her person, four out of which were on the skull, one on the\upper part of right ear, another on right cheek along with a contusion over an area of 6” oVer the right chest with fracture of 5th, 6th, 7th. and 8th rib over the mid clavicular line with huge blood present over the right thoracic cavity. Along with this, there was another contusion on the left chest over an area of 4”. These injuries clearly go to show that the deceased was repeatedly struck With the lathi on vital parts resulting in instantaneous death. The injuries sustained by Amso Bao, leave no manner of doubt that death was not only homicidal, but the‘appellant had intended to cause the death of ... Amso Bai. A . 16. After having carefully considered the evidence led by the prosecution, we have no hesitation in holding that the guilt under Section 302 ofrthe Indian Penal Code has been clearly brought home by the prosecution beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt against the accusedj appellant.