High Court · 2006

DMSION BENCH HON7SHRiVIJAYKUMAR SriRtVASTAVA. J & HON. SHRI DHIRENDRA MlSHRA. J

31.10.2006 Shri J.K. Shastri, couns€|t for the appellant. Shri U.N.S. Deo, Addl. Ffublic Prosecutor wrth Shri Dinesh Chandra Pandey, P.L. for the Sta^e/respondent. Heard finally. Judgment dictated on Per \4iav Kumar ShrivastavaJ Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur holtfing the appeltant guitty for committing m|yrcter of his wife Muchkl Kosi punistoble under Section 302 of (he Indian Penal Code victe judgment of convjction and order <>f sentence dated 22.7.19^ passed in S.T.No. 265/97, sentenc|ed him to undergo imprisonmentfor life. Prosecution ver^ion as unfoided during trial is that on

22.6.1997 in the night i it around 10.00 p.m. a quarrel in b^ween appellant and his wife M iichaki Kosi, who was pregnant, took ptace. The appellant assaulted| her by foot on her stoma©h,she feN dowi. Thereafter, the appellarft by pressing her neck, klllect hei. Dudhi Hadma, brother of dece|ased Muchakj Kosi witnessed the incident. On the next day Pancha^at was convened, the appeltant was ealled XI-HC-78 7S[ 'qfAlld-tl, yxIl^Ko, (c(dlti^< HI*IWt Sh+lich ri^0^^..4^^tl? ^-200 sn^rq^? (lic<^^) 3n^T^TR'li<=b ^TT3TT^?T$h^i<=h ?^TT^R:^fi<T3TT^T <=bi^f^i<41Ti ^\H^\ ^ tec<ft <Ri<^i< ^3^H3TI^T who made extra |udicia|l confession before the Panehayat. Appellant's brother Much^ki Bhuska on 23.6.1997 gave merg inttmation and lodged Firel Informatton Report at Police Station - Kukanar. Assistant Sub| Inspector Ram Nivas Saxena after recordingboth the docume^ts directed Head Constable Shankarlat to conduct inquest and ir| ivestigate the crime. Head Censtabte Shankarlal conducted in] ftuest, prepared inquest report and forwarded the dead body| for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Chindgarh. Dr. Ramesh K^ imar Nachankar ccnducted autopsy and opined that Mut^iaki Kos| died due to aspt^xia as a result of throttling. After mentionin^ comptete detaits amt also deseribjng injuries, he fonnreirded the postmortem repert to th®police station. Statements of the witnessjes have been reeorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and aft^r comptetion of the investigatton charge sheet has been led in th|e Court of Judicial Magistrate Second Class, Sukma, who committed the case to the Court @f Session for trial. Charge under Secti4n 3°2 of the IPC was framed, read over and explained to the app^llant who ab|ured^tti^guilt and in his defence claimed hlmsetftolbe innocent o^' XI-HC-78 3^ ^raT^PT, ^T(1^4i<o, fa<nw^< - T.- +11*1^1 ff»*11<ft ^^:^^^3/^' ^ 200 ^T^^ch 3TT^T^T^i<?h cW3n^?T$h^icb 5«11^K^Tf?cT3:n^rT Gbl<M?d41ri ^RTTOt ^ f^t <fa<-<-!< ^3Tf^T3niST Leamedtrial Court appreeiating evicteRce cn record told the appellant guitty for commi|lting murder of his M^fe Muchsrfd Kosi and accordingly, convicted an<|l sentenced him. Death of Muchaki Kosi betng homieidal in nature has not been disputed. Even oth^rwise from the statement of ©r.F^inwsh Kumar Nachankar (P.W.1D and autopsy re^wrt (Ex.P^), it hss been established that following) e)dwnal and internal tnjurtes have been found on the body of th^ deceased, her death was homteklat in nature and cause of her djeath was asphyxja due to throttling. External Iniuries: (0 (ii) One contus on present on r^ht side of neck 4 cm. below the ar of mandtble, siz»2.5 x 4 c.m. On left sidel of neck four contusions distributed from above downdwards and outwards. Size 2x4 c.m., 2 x 5c.m.,2x3|c.m. (jil) Crescentic ^crateh is present in right ear (inner upper side). Internal Iniurv: Fracture second a< ^d third ribs, 3.0 c.m. away of thelr joints with sternum left sWe. XI-HC-78 3^'^l^Krt^, ^Tfl^Ko, facrtl<rl^< _^_ Chr-^ - ^^>'-s/??_ ^ 300- *11*1^t »»*ll<ft ^' ^ 3TT^?T<T^W (v^^) STT^T^T^icti ^8TT3T[^T^i<=b ?^TTW^(N^n^T <=bi^f<n41vi ^i^^iT^fte^t^^K ^3Tf^TW^T Dudhi Hadma (Fl.W.2). W.2), brother ofdeceased Muchaki Kosi, in his statement categori<|;ally stated that the appellant aicl his wife Muchaki Kosi were q^arreling arreling; thwefwe, he went to appeltant's house. Appellant assa|Lilted her sister by foot on her stomach and threw her down and thfer reafter he pressed her neck. fiSter seeing the incident he came kiack to his house. ^i tfie ne)d mernir^ he went to see his sisteit. He found her lying dead in her house. Appetlant was absent. He apprised ttiis fact to his brother-in-law Bhuska. Learned counsell for the appellant c@ntended that Dudhi Hadma (P.W. 2) in hi^ statement has gh/en the verslen in past 1 ^. tense, therefore, he is an eyewitness. We are afraid to accept this contention. Statembnt of Dudhi Hadma (P.W. 2) is to be read /••• asawhole. Inhis cro^s examination nothing has been tNroughtso as to discredit his statejment or to accept that this witness has not seen the incident. Afte( careful scrutiny of his siatemert, we are of the opinion ttiat tfiis wi^ness wilness has witnessed the incident and in his presence ttie appellant| not only kicked his wifejyho was pregnant but also pressed her neSpk. XI-HC-78 ^-G^ '<«*IIC1<1, »Tfl<^<l<o, fsidl'My O^- ,^-. ^^-^3/?^ *ll*1Cft1 St»H|Ct» ^-^o^- 3T(^7T q^TER (y(i^<s«<iiT) ^n^T^rf^ricp cW 3TT^?T ^ThF ^cTTW ^rf?cT W^T cbl^?<<l41'l HPT^if ^* fe^t <f^^j< ^>3T(^T3n^?T Dudhi Hadma (p.W. 2) further stated that Panchayat was convened and appeltani when asked aboutthe incident, stsrted that Muchaki Kosi did not s^rve him meal, therefore, he has kilted her. Muchaki Bhuska (P.vy. 6) in his statement deposed ttiat a Panchayat was convei ^ied, the appellant before the Panchayat confessed that by pre^sing the neck he kSIIed his wife Muehaki Kosi. Learned counsl ^l appellant contended extrajudidal confessior has been made before Panchayat and different version has b^en stated by the witnesses, tfierefore, no reliance can be placed |?n such extrajudicial confession and placed his reliance on the ju<|gment rendered by the Hon'bte the Apex Court jn Kishan Lal Va I. Stete of Raiasthan reoorted jn A^ 1899 SC3062. Ontheothei hand, learned counsel <br ttie State ptaced his reliance on the juc|gment rendered by the Hon'bte the Apex Court in Gura Sinah \fe. State of Ralasthan reDorted In 2001(21 SCC 205 and conten<|ed that tf the extrajudlcial cenfession is voluntary and not obtapned by coercion, inducement or promise, that alone is sufficient t< convict the offend^" 'T.O. XI-HC-78 3^ ^i^i^t^, ^Tn<H4i<o, fs«nw^< -<0 N1*1^1 ffi*1ich ri^0?c^^^r?./.<??. ^200 ^T^^cb W^T^rf^TOF cW 3T^?T ^TT^ •\' ?^cTT^R ^rfgcT 3TI^FT chi^Fci41r< ^i^^iT^'fe1c^'<f^<-<.i< ^ 3Tf^T 3Tlip?T On the fact of th^ case, ttie judgnnert rendwed by»the Hon'bte the Apex Court in the matter of Kishan Lal (supra) is djstjnguishabte. Law is on extrajudicial confession whether jt has been made before 'anchayat or anybody etee, if it is natural and voluntary and has n &t been obtained by threat, eowciwi or promise, the same is to b4 accepted and that alone is competwit to convictthe culprit. H !.j Here, in the insta^it case atthwgh there is «>me mirwr l..,:.1' discrepancies jn the state(nents of wttnesses who are vlllagers and whose statements have l|>een recorded after a lapse of time, but reading as a whole the gi^t of their statements is that the appeltant confessed kitling his wif^ by pressir^i her neck. There is no evidence to suggest that t|ie appeltent was threatened, promlsed or pressurized to make a(iy confession but frem the evtelence availabte on record it is ev|identthat before Panchayatthe appellant voluntarjly confessed his guitt, therefore, extrajudlctal confession made by him before Panctiayat js trustworthy and that alone can be relied on for his convictiont Thus, from the lent of eyewitoiess and exfrajudicfal confession made by the Itant, it has been establlshed that the ). XI-HC-78 3^ ^MRpr, ^Tn<H4i^, (®i<nM^< . <^rA- ^s-T^, *11+ldt S»»+11<ft ^200— ^ 311^1 451 tt» (^cii^CK^) w^T^rf^Ti^ cWW^fT^TrioF ^cTTW ^rf??f 3^T Cbl^fcnx41rl W^ff ^* fe^t <Ri^j< ^3:rf^R'3T1^r appellant killed his pifegnant wtfe. In the result, we are of e considered opinion th^t the teamed trial Court dkl not commit any error in holdlng the ap] ^ellant guilty for committing the mwder of his wife Muchaki Kosi an|d imposing sentence @n him. The appeal being devoid of substa hce is liable to be dismissed and tt®same is accordingly^ d^rti^ed[. Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^ ^^ ^:.\: ^' P.T.O.