AFf^ v. State of Chhattisgarh

(Ex.P-1) and First Information Report (Ex.P-2) was recorded. In the FIR (Ex.P-2), is mentionedthat on the date ofincident, i.e., 28/11/2007 Madhaiya(PW-l) heard noise from the house of the appellant. He went to the house Qf the appellant. The appellant told him that he killed his daughter in law with an axe ftangiya). Madhaiya (PW-1) went to Police Station Dhamdha alongwith the appellant. On being asked by Madhaiya (PW-1) andAmarbai (PW- 2), the appellant confessed his guilt and told them that he killed the deceased with the axe. The Investigating Officer reached the place of occurrence, gave notice (Ex.P-3) to Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.R-4) on the dead body ofthe deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the Government Hospital Dhamdha for postmortem examination vide Ex.-P/11. Doctor NarendraKumar Bokade (PW-5) conducted postmortem bn the dead body of the deceased andgave his report (Ex.-P/12), finding (i) incised wpund,

5.5cm x3.5 cm deep upto vertebra on mandibular area and trachea (ii) incised wound, 2 cm above cavical notch (supra) and mid of thyroid bone, of 5cm x 4cm x in depth of the vertebra and trachea and main blood vessels were cut (iii) incised wound, 5.5.cm x 4cm x in depth of uptovertebra on the neck and below the chin (iv) incised >A. ^ ^ wound, 5.5cm x 3cm x 3.5cm on the occipital region and v^rtebra joint cut (v) incised wound 4cmx3cmx4cm on the third and fourth vertebra and the third vertebra was cut(vi) incised wound, 5.|7cm x

3.5 cm x 3.5 cm on the back side below the neck and betweeh both of the scapular regions resulted into dislocation ofjoint ofvertebra. He opined that the cause of death was shock (haemorrhagic and ! neurologic) due to cutting of spinal cords and multiple incised wounds and the deathwas homicidal in nature. In further investigation, spot map (Ex.P-5) was prepaifed by Patwari (PW-6), hair of the head, pieces of bangles of the deceased, plain soil and blood stained soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.-P/6. Axe, Dhoti, Baniyan and other clothes of the appellant were seized vide Ex.P-7. Another spot map (Ex.P-20) was prepared by the Investigating Officer. The seized articles were sent tb Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur vide Ex.-P/23 and a report (Ex.P-25) was received therefrom. In FSL report (Ex.P- 25) it is reported that articleA- hair ofthe deceased, article B- pieces of bangles, article E- Axe of the appellant, article F- Dhoti, and article G- Baniyan of the appellant were found stained with blood. The seized articles were sent for Serological examination and a report (Ex.P-29) was received therefrom. In (Ex.P-29), is reported that item No. 3, i.e., earth and item No. 4, i.e., axe were staindd with human blood. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet wds filed against the appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate FirstiClass, .-/. Durg, who, in turn, committed the case to the Court of S^ssion Judge, Durg who conducted the trial and convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as mentioned above.

3. Shri C.R. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that the trial Court did not properly appreciate the evi^ence. The finding of conviction of the appellant is arrived at on the b^sis of extra judicial confession made by the appellant. The so called extra judicial confession is not reliable and cannot be based for con^iction. Therefore, theimpugned judgment ofconviction and sentenc^ is not sustainable and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

4. Shri Sandeep Yadav, learned Deputy Government Adyocate appearing for the State/respondent, supporting the imfiugned judgment, submitted that the conviction and sentence awartjed to the appellant do notwarrant any interference by this Court.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record ofSessions Trial No.19/2008, carefully.

6. The conviction of the appellant is based on the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the appellant before MaiJhaiya (PW-1) and Amarbai (PW-2)

7. In Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2001) 2 SCC 205, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows: "6. It is settled position of if true and voluntary, law that extrajudicial it can be relied upon confession, by the court to convict the accused for the comnfiission of the crime alleged. Despite inherent weakn^ss of "^ extrajudicial confession as an item of evideijice, cannot be ignored when shown that such conf^ssion was made before a person who has no reason to state is made in the circumstances falsely and to whom it which tend to support the statement. Relying upon an earlier judgment in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh. AIR 1954 SC 322, this Court again in Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab, (1975) 4 SCC 234, held that the evidence in the form of extraj^jdicial confession made by the accused to witnesses cannot always termed 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 volyntarily made, then the conviction can be founded on such evidence lalone. In Narayan Singh v. State ofM.P., (1985) 4 SCC ^6, this Court cautioned that it is not open to the court trying the criminal case to start with a presumptiori extrajudicial confession is always a weak ty|pe of evidence. It would depend on the nature of circumstances, the time when the confession isimade and the credibility of the witnesses who speak for such a confession. The retraction of extrajudicial confession which is a usual phenomenon in criminal cases would by itself not weaken the case of the prosecution based In Kishore Chand v. St^te of upon such a confession. H.P., (1991) 1 SCC 286, this Court held th|at an unambiguous extrajudicial confession possesses high probative value force as it emanates from the person who committed the crime and is admissible in eviiJence provided it is free from suspicion and suggestion J3f any falsity. However, ailleged relying before confession, the court has to be satisfied that voluntary and is not the result of inducement, thqeat or promise envisaged under Section 24 of the Eviidence Act or was brought about in suspicious circumstarices to circumvent Sections 25 and 26. The court is required to look into the surrounding circumstances to find ou^ as to whether such confession is not inspired by any improper or collateral consideration or circumvention 6f Sewati Bai (PW-1) suggesting that it may not be true. All relevant circumstances such as the person to the confession is made, the time and place of mal^ing it, to be the circumstances in which it was made have scrutinised. To the same effect is the judgm^nt