© HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2008 ^ -^ Permeshwar Vs; State of Chhattisgarh JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA ^ ^^yc^- Sd/- Chief Justice Post for Judgment :20/07/2009 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge '<" " HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil KumarSjnha. J. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Criminal Appeai No. 792 of 2008 Permeshwar S/o Ransai, Aged about 52 years, R/o Village Chandanpur, P.S. Surajpur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Jainagar, District- Sarguja (C.G.) (Appeal under Section 374 (2) of The Code of Criminal Procedurel Appearance: Smt. Kiran Jain, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Govt. Advocate, for the State. JUDGMENT (ZO.07.2009) Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) Appellant Permeshwar stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.l. for 2 days, by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 422/2007 on 21st July, 2008. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased Kayaso Bai was the mother of the appellant. She was residing separately in village Raie. There was some dispute between the appellant and the deceased on account of some immoveable property. The appellant was unhappy with the deceased because she had sold the landed property of her share to somebody else and was residing separately in village Raie. On <^ Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2008 21.8.2007, the appellant saw his mother in weekly market ofvillage Datima. The allegations are that when her mother was returning from village Datima to village Raie, he chased her, thereafter attacked her by a spade causing many injuries to her head resulting into her instantaneous death. After the incident, the appellant went to village Choukidar Ramsaran (PW-1) and made extra-judicial confession before him. Choukidar took him to Sarpanch Dilband Singh and Up-Sarpanch Khemsai Rajwade. The matter was reported to out-post Karanji, where the Merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) and the First Information Repprt (Ex.-P/2) were registered. Based on these documents, regular Merg intimation and F.1.R. were registered in police station Jainagar vide Ex.-P/17 & P/18. The Investigating Officer reached to the scene of occurrence gave notice (Ex.-P/12) to the Panchasand prepared inquest (again marked as Ex.-P/2)on the body of the deceased. Site plans were prepared under Ex.-P/6 & P/7. Blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence under Ex.-P/S. An iron spade and clothes of the appellant were seized from the possession of the appellant under Ex.-P/9 and saree of the deceased was also seized under Ex.-P/10. The dead body of the deceased was sent for its post-mortem to Govt. Hospital, Vishrampur, where the post-mortem examination was conducted by Dr. Rashmi Kumar (PW-14), who prepared post- mortem report Ex.-P/13. The Autopsy Surgeon found that there was a lacerated wound on the right portion of the skull, size 2 x 2 x 2 inches. The brain matter has come out. There was a contusion on the left side of skull, size 3 x2 x 0.5 inches. There was fracture in skull bone and huge amount of blood was collected in the brain. The Doctor opined that the cause of death was coma and shock due to head injury and fracture on skull and it was homicidal in nature. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur under Ex.-P/15 but the report could not be filed. CriminalApueal No. 792 of2008 After completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surajpur, who in turncommitted the matter to the Sessions Court, Ambikapur, from where it was received on transfer by the Second Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.), who conducted the triai and convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as aforementioned. (3) The conviction of the appellant is based upon the extra-judicial confession made by him before Choukidar, Ramsaran (PW-1). (4) Smt. Kiran Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. Moreover, it comes in the evidence of Ramsaran (PW-1) that the appellant made extra-judicial confession before him that he has killed his mother; he had seen the dead body of the deceased lying in pool of blood having injuries on her head; and he lodged the report to the concerned police station, on which, the matter was investigated. The Autopsy Surgeon found above injuries on the skull of the deceased; brain matter has come out and it was opined that the cause of death was coma and shock due to head injury and fracture on skull and it was homicidal in nature. Therefore, it was established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. (5) Smt. Jain then argued that the evidence of extra-judicial confession is shakey, therefore, the conviction based on such evidence alone cannot be sustained. / Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2008 (6) On the other hand, Mr. Praveen Das, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment and order passed by the Sessions Court. (7) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe sessions case. (8) Ramsaran (PW-1) deposed that "on the fateful day, appellant Permeshwar came to his house and stated that he has killed his mother. Permeshwar stated that her mother had sold the entire land, therefore, he has killed her in the field. Her dead body is lying in the filed near Daldaliya Dam behind the forest nursery". Hearing this, he went to Sarpanch Dilband Singh and Up-Sarpach Khemsai and he also narrated the story to son of Gouwatiya namely Anandpal and then, he reported the matter to police out-post Karanji. He has proved the contents and signature over the Merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) and F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2). The version of this witness is corroborated by the contents of the Merg intimation (Ex.-P/1) and F.I.R. (Ex.-P/2), in which, the facts relating to extra-judicial confession, made by the appellant to this witness finds place. This witness has been put to lengthy cross examination by the defence but the defence has not been able to elicit any such circumstance on which his evidence may be discarded. 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 Tor attributing an untruthful statement to the accused, the words Criminal Appeal No. 792 of 2008 spoken to by the witness are clear, unambiguous and 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 a conviction. (9) We have scrutinized the evidence of this witness with care and caution. We find that nothing has been brought on record to show that this witness was biased or was even remotely inimical to the appellant or was having a motive to attribute an untmthful statement to the appellant. This witness has deposed that the appellant stated in clear words that he has killed his mother and there was no ambiguity in all this. In our considered opinion, the learned Sessions Court has rightty relying on the testimony of this witness and has convicted the appellant for commission of murder of his mother. (10) We do not find any infirmity or illegality in the finding recorded by the Sessions Court. Thefinding is based on cogent, clinching and reliable evidence on record which deserves to be sustained. (11) The appeal has no merit, the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti