Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 84 (PAT)

Ramdahin Mishra v. State Of Bihar

2004-01-21

AFTAB ALAM, C.M.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. This appeal by a single appellant, Ramdahin Mishra is directed against the judgment and order, dated 5.6.2000 passed by the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No. 156 of 1996. By the judgment and order coming under appeal, the appellant stands convicted under Sections 302/201 of the Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and for three years respectively for the two offences. Before the trial Court there were three other accused persons. The other three accused and the appellant faced the charge of entering into a conspiracy to commit murder, in pursuance of which he committed the offence and hid the body of the victim. (The appellant had the additional charge under Sections 302/201, IPC against him). The trial Court found and held that the charge of conspiracy was not established. The other three accused were, accordingly, acquitted. But the appellant was found guilty of committing murder and hiding the body of the victim and he alone was, therefore, convicted and sentenced by the trial Court. 2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of the fardbeyan (Ext. 5) of one Ram Prahlad Mishra of village Basuara (PW 23) father of the victim, Arvind Mishra. It was recorded by the Sub-Inspector of Police from Bisanpur (Moro) P.S. at the road of village Basuara on 3.9.1993 at 5.30 in the evening. A formal First Information Report (Ext. 6) was later drawn up on 4.9.1993 at 9 a.m. giving rise to Bisanpur (Moro) P.S. Case No. 0090 of 1993. 3. The informant gave his statement in presence of a large number of villagers while the dead body of Arvind Mishra also lay there on a cot. In his statement before the police Ram Prahlad Mishra said that on that day at about 10 in the morning Ramdahin Mishra. the appellant, came to his house and told his son Arvind Mishra that one of his mango trees and a sisam tree at Chhagra Gaclihi had fallen down by flood waters and that he should come there and keep a watch, otherwise someone might cut and take away the trees. On this his son went along with him. The informant said that a large number of persons, including Rajiv Kumar Mishra (PW 4). Mahendra Mishra (not examined) Bibhuti Narayan Mishra (PW 9) had seen them going together. On this his son went along with him. The informant said that a large number of persons, including Rajiv Kumar Mishra (PW 4). Mahendra Mishra (not examined) Bibhuti Narayan Mishra (PW 9) had seen them going together. The informant further said that at about 2 in the after-noon Ramdahin again came to his house and asked for Rs. 200/-from his daughter-in-law saying that Arvindhad stayed back on the dih for cutting janera and had asked him (Ramdahin), who was going to Darbhanga, to take some money (from his home) and bring for him some cloths from there. On this his daughter-in-law gave him Rs. 200/- and he went away. The informant said that when his son did not come back by 3 Oclock he became a little suspicious and went to the janera filed to look for him. There the watchman of the field Bauey Lal Ram (PW 1) informed him that Arvind had not come therefor cutting jenera but a little while ago Ramdahin had come in wet condition and had asked about Arvind. He (Bauey Lal) told him (Ramdahin) that Arvind had not come there. This made the informant more suspicious. At that moment his nephew Rajiv Kumar Mishra (PW 4) and grand-son Sanjeev Kumar (PW 5) told him that Ramdahin was seen going hurriedly in the direction of Kolhanta. The informant then sent some person (s) on motor cycle and had him (Ramdahin) apprehended and brought back to the village. In presence of a large number of villagers he was interrogated and asked about Arvind since he had gone with him on his inducement and as to why did he falsely say that he was cutting janera. Then Ramdahin disclosed out of fear. (tab who dar se bataye) that he had killed Arvind by drowning at Chaggra Gachhi, Basuara because on certain matters he used to oppose him (Ramdahin) and one of his (Arvinds) pattidars. The informant further stated that they took Ramdahin on boat to Chaggra Gachhi and asked him about the body. He took them to the spot where after killing the deceased by drowning, he had concealed the body. Then the dead body was taken out from water and it was put on the road. On return, as the boat approached the dry ground Ramdahin jumped from the boat and taking advantage of the large crowd assembled there fled away. He took them to the spot where after killing the deceased by drowning, he had concealed the body. Then the dead body was taken out from water and it was put on the road. On return, as the boat approached the dry ground Ramdahin jumped from the boat and taking advantage of the large crowd assembled there fled away. At that time the wife of Ram Bahadur Sahani of village Tisidih also came there and said that a short while ago Ramdahin had gone to her and had asked for an ear then pitcher for tying it to the dead body to conceal it in deep water. 4. The informant further said that it was evident that in a pre-planned manner and with the intent to kill his son Ramdahin had called him from his house and had killed him either by assaulting or by drowning and had hidden the body underwater. He added that at the time his son was going out with Ramdahin, he told him to pay his obeisance to his parents as he was going to wade into flood waters and he might not come back. On this his son had said that he had faced the flood of the year 1987 and this was no flood. The informant further said that disputes with his pattidars and village politics were the cause behind the offence. He concluded by saying that those people conspiring together had got Ramdahin to commit the offence because previously also Ramdahin had gone to jail in connection with some criminal offences and his conduct was not good, that a large number of villagers had witnessed the occurrence. 5. His statement recorded by the Sub-Inspector was read out to him and finding it correct he put his signature, which was marked as Ext. 2 in the trial Court. 6. In the fardbeyan the informant expressed his suspicion against some of his pattidars (without naming them) as being behind the conspiracy to kill his son due the family disputes and village politics. It appears that in course of investigation the suspicion developed and the allegation was pin-pointed against Raghubansh Mishra and his two sons Arun Kumar Mishra and Sudhir Kumar Mishra, agnates of the informant. Before the trial Court they along with the present appellant were charged under Sections 302/120-B of the Penal Code. 7. It appears that in course of investigation the suspicion developed and the allegation was pin-pointed against Raghubansh Mishra and his two sons Arun Kumar Mishra and Sudhir Kumar Mishra, agnates of the informant. Before the trial Court they along with the present appellant were charged under Sections 302/120-B of the Penal Code. 7. From the trial record it appears that the prosecution case against those three accused was based on a weak motive and a lot weaker circumstantial evidence. The charge against them, therefore, failed but the charge under Sections 302/201 against the present appellant firmly held. 8. The prosecution case against the appellant is primarily based upon his oral confession made in presence of a number of villagers and on the fact that he took the prosecution witnesses and some others (Not examined as witnesses) to the exact spot where the dead body of Arvind Mishra lay under water and himself brought out the body from under water. There is of course one witness (PW 6) who claims to have seen the actual occurrence but he proclaimed himself to be an eye-witness of this case very belatedly and thus lost much of his credibility. 9. Now is the time to examine the prosecution evidence but before proceeding to do so it would be useful to take an overall view of the prosecution case and to have a clear picture of the different locations mentioned in the case. 10. The victim Arvind Mlshra, members of his family, the appellant and the majority of the prosecution witnesses live (d) at village Basuara under Bisanpur (Moro) P.S. The crime took place at Chaggra Gachhi. As the names suggests, it is a cluster of trees, both timber and fruit bearing. From the evidence of PW 26 (the main I.O. of the case) it appears that it is at a distance of about one and half Kilometer, towards sought, from village Basuara. The Plantation of trees is over an area of about one and half bigha. 11. Chhagra Gachhi is the ancestral property of the informants family and his other agnates and the informants share was towards its north-east. On the northern ridge (of the Gachhi) a sisam tree and a Mango tree of the informant were fallen down by flood waters and, according to the prosecution, it was at this spot that the appellant had brought Arvind. On the northern ridge (of the Gachhi) a sisam tree and a Mango tree of the informant were fallen down by flood waters and, according to the prosecution, it was at this spot that the appellant had brought Arvind. By the side of this spot is the agricultural land of Ram Gopal Mishra and Ram Sewak Mishra and the dead body of Arvind was placed there under flood waters. Chhagra Gachhi is a completely isolated place. On its north, at a distance of one and half kilometer is Basuara. On the south at a distance of 5 km. is godarpatti. At a distance of 2 Km. is Kolhanta and about half kilometer in the west is village Tisidih, From the evidence of the I.O. and other prosecution witnesses it is also clear that it was flood time and excepting portions of road and homestead areas and the land adjoining the villages (called dih in Bihar) all other areas were under varying depths of flood water. 12. It will also be useful to take a brief view of the sequence of events, according to the prosecution case. This is as follows ; "(i) At about 10 in the morning of 3.9.1993 the appellant came to the house of the informant and induced his son Arvind Mishra to go out with him to Chhagra Gachhi. The appellant seems to have a macabre sense of humour and at the time Arvind Mishra was leaving the house to go out with him, he asked him to pay obeisance to his parents since he would be going through flood waters and might not come back. (ii) At about 1-1.30 p.m. he came to the dih on the western side of the village where Bauey Lal Ram (PW 1) was keeping a watch over the fields. He was in wet condition. He asked Bauey Lal whether Arvind had come there. PW 1 replied that Arvind had gone along with the appellant himself; he had seen them going together. The appellant then went in the direction of the village. (iii) At about 2 p.m. the appellant once again came to the house of the informant and asked for Rs. 200/-. He asked Bauey Lal whether Arvind had come there. PW 1 replied that Arvind had gone along with the appellant himself; he had seen them going together. The appellant then went in the direction of the village. (iii) At about 2 p.m. the appellant once again came to the house of the informant and asked for Rs. 200/-. He said that Arvind has stayed back at the dih for cutting janera and he himself was going to Darbhanga; that Arvind had asked him to take some money from his house to bring some cloths for him. The informant took Rs. 200/- from Arvinds wife and handed it to the appellant. (iv) At about 3 p.m. the family members of Arvind became worried and suspicious and the informant (PW 23) along with his nephew Rajiv Kumar Mishra (PW 4) went to the dih looking for Arvind Mishra. There they met PW 1 who told them that Arvind had not come there; that earlier in the day at 10-10.30 he had seen Arvind and the appellant going together in the direction of Chhagra Gachhi but the appellant alone had come back in wet condition. Arvind had not come back. PW 1 also said that he had seen the appellant going hurriedly in the direction of Kohanta village. (v) On this, the informant and his family members became very worried. Rajiv Kumar Mishra (PW 4) came back to the house, took out his motor cycle, went to Sanjeev Kumar Mishra (PW 5) and both of them proceeded on motor cycle for Kohanta. When they reached Bodh-Nagar Chowk they found the appellant there but on seeking them he tried to flee in the direction of the water. They apprehended him there and brought him back on the motor cycle to Basuara Chowk where a large number of people were assembled from before. (vi) On interrogation the appellant stated before a large number of people that he had killed Arvind and had hid his body under water at Chhagra Gachhi. (vii) The informant then asked Sanjeev Kumar Mishra to arrange for boat(s). He went to the neighbouring village Tisidih and arranged for the boats of Bibhuti Sahani (PW 2) and Ram Gulam Sahani (not examined). (viii) PW 2 and Ram Gulam Sahani brought their boats to the road on the western side of Basuara dih. (vii) The informant then asked Sanjeev Kumar Mishra to arrange for boat(s). He went to the neighbouring village Tisidih and arranged for the boats of Bibhuti Sahani (PW 2) and Ram Gulam Sahani (not examined). (viii) PW 2 and Ram Gulam Sahani brought their boats to the road on the western side of Basuara dih. (ix) From there a number of persons, including the informant and several prosecution witnesses, proceeded for Chhagra Gachhi on the two boats, taking the appellant with them. (x) Slightly towards the north of Chhargra Gachhi the appellant got the boats stopped. He got down into water and from under water brought out the dead body of Arvind Mishra, holding it by leg. Then other persons also got down into water and the body was pulled on to the boat. The two boats then returned to Basuara chowk. The arrival of the boats there caused much confusion and excitement in the crowd; the attention o the people was mainly focussed on the dead body and in taking it down from the boat. Taking advantage of the mellee the appellant jumped from the boat and fled away. (xi) The body of Arvind Mishra was put on a cot under a tamarind tree at Basuara Chowk. (xii) The Sub-Inspector from Bisan-pur (Moro) P.S. came there and recorded the fardbeyan of Prahlad Mishra, the father of the deceased. (xiii) After night fall the female members of the family, including the wife of the deceased came there and saw his body. 13. In support of its case and in order to establish the sequence of events as narated above the prosecution examined as many as 27 witnesses. The last four are policemen. PW 26 is the main I.O. though PWs 24 and 25 had also briefly taken part in the investigation of the case at one time or the other. PW 27 was examined for proving the fardbeyan, (Ext. 5) and for identifying the hand writing of the officer in whose hand it was written. 14. Among the rest of the 23 prosecution witnesses, PW 6 Prabhu Sahani claims to be an eye-witness. He is a resident of the adjoining village Tisidih and, according to him, on the date of occurrence, he had gone to Chhagra Gachhi and had claimed over a tree for collecting fire wood. 14. Among the rest of the 23 prosecution witnesses, PW 6 Prabhu Sahani claims to be an eye-witness. He is a resident of the adjoining village Tisidih and, according to him, on the date of occurrence, he had gone to Chhagra Gachhi and had claimed over a tree for collecting fire wood. He deposed before the Court that perched on the tree he saw Ramdahin Mishra and Arvind Mishra coming into the Gachhi. Ramdahin Mishra assaulted Arvind Mishra with fists. Arvind Mishra fell down, Ramdahin climbed over his chest and pressed hard (humach diya). Arvind died and then Ramdahin took the body to the north dragging it by leg and dumped it under chest deep water. He then went in the direction of the dih. The witness further stated that he got scared and did not utter a word. He ran away to some village towards the north and did not tell anyone in the village about the occurrence. After 3-4 days he went to Basuara hat. At the tea-shop of Bhola Sao he came to learn that Ramdahin had confessed that he had killed Arvind. On this, he said that wag right and he had himself witnessed the occurrence. He further stated that the police took his statement after 15-16 days and about a month later his statement was recorded before the Magistrate at the instance of darogaji. 15. The evidence of PW 6 was naturally assailed on behalf of the appellant as being highly belated and, therefore, unworthy of reliance. 16. Of the remaining 22 witnesses Bauey Lal Ram (PW 1) is a co-villager and the watchman of the crops. Bibhuti Sahani (PW 2) is a boatman of the adjoining village Tisidih. The appellant was taken on his boat to Chhagra Gachhi where he identified the exact spot where the body lay under water. He then got into water and took-out the dead body of Arvind Mishra. PW 3 is a co-villager. He too is a witness of the recovery of the body by the appellant. PW 4 Rajiv Kumar Mishra is the nephew of the informant, living together with him, PW 5 is related as grand-son to the informant. He lived separately from him. PW 6 as noted above, is the only eye-witness. Bibhuti Narayan Mishra (PW 7) is related to the informant. PW 4 Rajiv Kumar Mishra is the nephew of the informant, living together with him, PW 5 is related as grand-son to the informant. He lived separately from him. PW 6 as noted above, is the only eye-witness. Bibhuti Narayan Mishra (PW 7) is related to the informant. He is a witness to some of the events, of the case, including the confession by the appellant and the recovery of the dead body by him. Anita Devi (PW 8) is the wife of the deceased. She deposed with regard to certain events of the case that took place at her house and her further deposition was mainly in regard to the other three accused who were acquitted by the trial Court. Ram Chandra Trivedi (PW 9) is the father-in-law of the deceased. He was tendered for cross-examination. Chandeshwar Mishra (PW 10) is another co-villager and his deposition was mainly in regard to the other three accused. Kamla Devi (PW 11) is the wife of the informant. She was tendered for cross-examination. Sumitra Devi (PW 12), wife of the younger brother of the informant was also tendered for cross-examination. Madhav Mishra (PW 13), a co-villager, was declared hostile, Jogi Thakur (PW 14) another co-villager was tendered for cross-examination. Mahesh Kumar Mishra (PW 15), nephew of the informant, turned hostile, Braj Kishore Mishra (PW 16) is the brother of the informant. So far as the appellant is concerned, he (PW 16) is only a hear-say witness in regard to his confession and the recovery of the body by him. He mainly deposed against the other three accused. Bauey Lal Pandey (PW 17), another co-villager, also turned hostile. Ram Bahadur Sahani (PW 18), another co-villager was tendered for cross-examination. Babita Kumari (PW 19), the younger sister of the deceased, stated in regard to the events of the case, taking place at her house. Suresh Ram (PW 20), son of PW 1, is a witness in regard to the appellants confession. 17. Bhanti Devi (PW 21) is a resident of village Tisidih. She had seen two persons going into the Gachhi but her evidence is of hardly any significance. 18. Bidya Devi (PW 22) is also of village Tisidih. Suresh Ram (PW 20), son of PW 1, is a witness in regard to the appellants confession. 17. Bhanti Devi (PW 21) is a resident of village Tisidih. She had seen two persons going into the Gachhi but her evidence is of hardly any significance. 18. Bidya Devi (PW 22) is also of village Tisidih. She stated before the Court that at about 12 in the noon the appellant had came to her and had asked for an earthen pitcher or tasla (vessel) for crossing the river to go to Chhagra Gachhi. 19. PW 23 is the informant. 20. The prosecution was unable to examine the doctor who held post-mortem on the body of the deceased and in that regard the trial Court has made the following observation in its judgment : The prosecution has not examined the doctor who held the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased inspite of several opportunities given to the prosecution and the prosecution was allowed to examine the doctor as Court witness but inspite of that the doctor could not be examined in this case." 21. Before the trial Court some defence witnesses were also examined. But they were all on behalf of the other three accused and in this appeal they are of no relevance. 22. Of all the prosecution witnesses. PW 4 Rajeev Kumar Mishra is the most complete in that he deposed on the full sequence of events. He only omitted to mention the warning given by Ramdahin to the deceased, while they were leaving the house, that he was going out to wade through flood waters and he might not come back, therefore, he should say Pranam to his parents. Next to him is the informant Ram Prahlad Mishra, PW 23. He too is witness to all the events, excepting the one enumerated at sub-para (v) of para 12 hereinabove, in regard to the apprehension of Ramdahin by Rajeev Kumar Mishra and Sanjeev Kumar Mishra at Bodh Nagar Chowk and his being brought back on motor cycle to Basuara Chowk. The rest of the prosecution witnesses deposed in regard to one or more of the circumstances comprising the prosecution case, a majority of them in regard to the confession by Ramdahin and the recovery of the dead body from under water by him. 23. The rest of the prosecution witnesses deposed in regard to one or more of the circumstances comprising the prosecution case, a majority of them in regard to the confession by Ramdahin and the recovery of the dead body from under water by him. 23. PW 4 Rajeev Kumar Mishra stated in Court that Ram Prahlad Mishra was his uncle and the deceased Arvind was his cousin (chachera bhai). On 3.9.1993, the date of occurrence, at about 10 in tne morning he was having meal at his house. His uncle Ram Prahlad Mishra, cousin Arvind (the deceased), Bibhuti Narayan Mishra, PW 7 and Mahendra Narayan Mishra (not examined) were also present. At that time Ramdahin Mishra came there and said that a Mango tree and a sisam tree had fallen down at Chhagra Gachhi and that they did not seem to worry that the boatmen might cut and carry those tree away. On hearing this Arvind Bhaiya changed into under pants, took a gamchha and went away with Ramdahin, after an hour or an hour and half Ramdahin came back and said that Arvind had asked for Rs. 200/- to be given to him for getting some cloths from Darbhanga. He (Rajeev) told this to his bhabhi (the wife of Arvind) inside the house. Then she came out and asked Ramdahin about her husband. Ramdahin replied that he was cutting janera and makai at the dih. After taking the money Ramdahin went away. When Arvind did not come back till 3 p.m. then he and Ram Prahlad Mishra went to look for him at the dih. He was not there. The watchman Bauey Lal who was there said that at about 10-10.30 he had seen Ramdahin and Arvind going in the direction of Chhagra Gachhi but later Ramdahin alone came back in wet clothes; Bauey Lal also said that Ramdahin had asked him about Arvind on which he (bua) replied that how would he know since he had gone with him (Ramdahin). Thereafter Ramdahin had gone to (his) house. He also said that he had seen Ramdahin in the direction of Kolhanta. 24. Rajeev Kumar Mishra further said that he came back to his house and taking Sanjeev Kumar Mishra along with him proceeded, on motor cycle, in the direction of Kolhanta in search of Ramdahin. Thereafter Ramdahin had gone to (his) house. He also said that he had seen Ramdahin in the direction of Kolhanta. 24. Rajeev Kumar Mishra further said that he came back to his house and taking Sanjeev Kumar Mishra along with him proceeded, on motor cycle, in the direction of Kolhanta in search of Ramdahin. He was found slightly ahead of Bodh Nagar Chowk and on seeing them he tried to flee away. The apprehended him with the help of sme people there and brought him back to Basuara Chowk on the motor cycle. There, in front of a large number of people. Ramdahin confessed that he had killed Arvind by climbing over his chest and assaulting him with fists and had put his body under water. Then two boats were arranged and on those boats they proceeded for Chhagra Gachhi, taking Ramdahin along with them. He (PW 4) was also in one of the boats. Ramdahin got the boats stopped at a point towards the north of Chhagra Gachhi. He (Ramdahin) entered into the water and took out the body. There was some mud over the body and there was the sign of bleeding from nose. 25. The dead body of Arvind was taken on one of the boats and was carried to Basuara Chowk where a large number of people had assembled. The body was taken down from the boat and was brought under the tamarind tree. There was wailing and crying and people were very distracted; (taking advantage of which) Ramdahin was able to flee away. 26. The other parts of the deposition of Rajeev Mishra were in regard to the other three accused persons but in this appeal we are not concerned with that. That witness was subjected to a long cross-examination but there is hardly anything to detract from what he said in his examination-in-cheif. 27. The next witness who deposed on almost the full sequence of events is the informant, PW 23 Ram Prahlad Mishra, the father of the deceased. He stated before the Court that on 3.9.1993 at about 10 Ramdahin came to his door and called for Arvind who was having meal; that Ramdahin told Arvind that at Chhagra Gachhi one of his sisam trees and one of the mango trees had fallen down and he should go there and keep a watch otherwise someone would cut and take those trees away. He further said that when Arvind got prepared to go (with him), Ramdahin told him to say pranam to his parents since he was going out into flood waters and might not come back. Arvind replied that he had swum across the 1987 flood (waters) compared to which this was very ordinary flood. Then Arvind and Ramdahin went away. 28. Ram Prahlad Mishra further said that at about 2 Ramdahin Mishra came back. At that time he (PW 23) was at the door. Ramdahin said that Arvind was cutting janera at the dih and he (Ramdahin) was going to Darbhanga; that Arvind had asked him to take some money from his house and to bring some cloth for him from Darbhanga. He (PW 23) took Rs. 200/-from his daughter-in-law and gave it to Ramdahin. 29. Ram Prahlad Mishra further said that when Arvind did not come back by 3 Oclock, he and other family members got worried and they went to the dih looking for him. There they met the watchman Bauey Lal who said that earlier Ramdahin had also come looking for Arvind whereupon he (Bauey Lal) had said that at about 10 he had seen Arvind going in the direction of Chhagra Gachhi along with Ramdahin himself. On coming to learn from Bauey Lal that Arvind had not come there, their suspicion grew stronger, at that time his (PW 23), nephew Sanjeev Kumar Mishra came and said that Ramdahin was seen going hurriedly towards the east. He (PW 23) asked Rajeev Kumar Mishra to go to catch and bring back Ramdahin, for only he would be able to say (about Arvind). Rajeev and Sanjeev went after Ramdahin on motor cycle and brought him back to Basuara Chowk after catching him at Patauri. At Basuara Chowk there was a large number of people along with him (PW 23). Ramdahin was asked about Arvind, Initially he refused to say anything but later in front of everyone, he admitted that after killing him by fists and slaps he had deposited the dead body under water near Chhagra Gachhi. 30. Ram Prahlad Mishra further stated that he called for boats for going to Chhagra Gachhi. A number of persons went to Chhagra Gachhi on the boats. Ramdahin got the boat stopped where the dead body was lying. 30. Ram Prahlad Mishra further stated that he called for boats for going to Chhagra Gachhi. A number of persons went to Chhagra Gachhi on the boats. Ramdahin got the boat stopped where the dead body was lying. He got down into water and brought out the dead body from under water holding it by leg. Then some other people also got down from the boat into the water and brought the body on the boat. The body was then brought back to Basuara Chowk. On reaching the chowk, they started crying and wailing and taking advantage of their unattentiveness Ramdahin fled away. At Basuara Chowk the wife of Ram Bahadur Sahni of village Tisidih stated that Ramdahin had asked her for a pitcher. 31. The rest of the evidence of PW 23 in examination-in-chief is in respect of the other three accused persons but we are not concerned with that in this appeal. PW 23 was also subjected to a lengthy cross-examination but in so far as the sequence of events with regard to the present appellant is concerned he firmly stood the ground. 32. The rest of the prosecution witnesses are in regard to one or more of the events as enumerated in para 12 comprising the prosecution case against the appellant. 33. On the point that at about 10 in the morning of 3.9.1993 Ramdahin had gone to the house of the informant and had induced his son to go to Chhagra Gachhi with him, the relevant witnesses are PW 4 (Rajeev Kumar Mishra), PW 8 (Anita Devi, wife of the deceased), PW 19 (Babita Kumari, younger sister of Arvind) and PW 23, (the informant). On the point that Ramdahin had asked Arvind to say pranam to his parents since he might not come back, the relevant witnesses are PWs are 8, 19 and 23. 34. Ramdahin and Arvind were seen together at about 10-10.30 going in the direction of Chhagra Gachhi by PWs 1 (Bauey Lal Ram), 5 (Sanjeev Kumar Mishra), 7 (Bibhuti Narain Mishra) and 21 (Bhanti Devi). 35. That at about 1-1.30 Ramdahin had come to the dih in wet clothes and had asked about Arvind is deposed by PW 1 and the statement of PW 1 is corroborated by PWs 4, 7 and 23. 36. 35. That at about 1-1.30 Ramdahin had come to the dih in wet clothes and had asked about Arvind is deposed by PW 1 and the statement of PW 1 is corroborated by PWs 4, 7 and 23. 36. That at about 2 Ramdahin had once again gone to the house of the informant and had asked for Rs. 200/- saying that Arvind was cutting janera at the dih is deposed by PWs 4, 8, 19 and 23. 37. That at about 3 the informant and some other family-members had gone to the dih looking for Arvind and had met PW 1 there, is stated by PWs 1, 4, 7 and 23. 38. That Rajeev Kumar and Sanjeev Kumar went alter Ramdahin is stated by PWs 4, 5, 7 and 23; that they apprehended Ramdahin near Bodh Nagar Chowk and brought him back to Basuara Chowk is stated by PWs 4 and 5. 39. That Ramdahin confessed about killing Arvind and depositing the body under water at Chhagra Gachhi is stated by PWs 1, 4, 5, 7, 20 and 23. 40. That a number of people went to Chhagra Gachhi on two boats, taking Ramdahin with them and that on reaching the exact spot where the body was lying under water, Ramdahin got the boat stopped, stepped down into water and brought the body out from undef water, is stated by PW 1, PW 2 (Bibhuti Sahni, the boatman from Tisidih), PWs 3, 4, 5, 7 and 23. 41. That when the boats came back to Basuara Chowk carrying the dead body of Arvind, Ramdahin succeeded in fleeing away is stated by PWs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 23. 42. From the prosecution witnesses discussed above, it is manifest and clear that all the events comprising the prosecution case are separately and independently well established by cogent and reliable evidence and further that events taken together form a complete chain, leading to the inference regarding the appellants guilt without any reasonable doubt. 43. At this stage, however, it is necessary to consider the submissions of Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur who appeared in support of the appeal and presented the case of the appellant quite ably. Mr. Thakur first submitted that all the important prosecution witnesses were either close relatives of the informant or were his employee(s). 43. At this stage, however, it is necessary to consider the submissions of Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur who appeared in support of the appeal and presented the case of the appellant quite ably. Mr. Thakur first submitted that all the important prosecution witnesses were either close relatives of the informant or were his employee(s). He pointed out that PW 4 was the nephew of the informant and PW 5 was related to him as grand-son who had also lit the pyre of the deceased Arvind. Another important witness PW 1 was an employee of the informant at watchman of his fields. He pointed out the statement of PW 2 in para 17 where he stated that Bauey Lal was the ploughman of Prahlad Mishra. In this regard it may be noted that PW 1- had himself said (in para 23 of his statement) that he was not the ploughman of Ram Prahlad Mishra and apart from the fields of others, he also watched the fields of Prahlad Mishra. 44. To me it appears that it would be a very sweeping statement, for which there is no evidence on record, that all those witnesses who were not related to the informant were his employees or servants. It further appears that socially and economically, the family of the informant and his other agnates were in dominant position in village Basuara. In this case the two agnates were arrayed on two sides in a case of murder. It has, therefore, quite natural that most of the witnesses were either related/connected with one or the other or to both the sides. In this regard, it may also be noted that PW 15. Mahesh Mishra who is a nephew of the informant turned hostile and sided with the accused. I, therefore, do not see it as any weakness of the prosecution case that some of the important prosecution witnesses were related to and/or connected to the informant. 45. Mr. Thakur next assailed the extra-judicial confession of Ramdahin made in presence of a large number of villagers, including the prosecution witnesses. Mr. Thakur submitted that it was a retracted confession because the appellant had not confessed his guilt during the trial on even at the stage of Section 313, Cr PC. 45. Mr. Thakur next assailed the extra-judicial confession of Ramdahin made in presence of a large number of villagers, including the prosecution witnesses. Mr. Thakur submitted that it was a retracted confession because the appellant had not confessed his guilt during the trial on even at the stage of Section 313, Cr PC. He further submitted that the prosecution case regarding confession by the appellant was wholly unreliable because there were many inconsistencies in the different statements regarding the alleged confession by the appellant. He also submitted that in any event the confession was not voluntary and on the prosecutions own showing it was obtained by threat or inducement. Mr. Thakur further submitted that the prosecution case regarding confession was also falsified by the statement of PW 9, the father-in-law of the deceased. PW 9 staled that Sudhir Mishra (who was later made an accused in the case) and Rajeev Mishra, PW 4 had come to give him the information regarding the death of Arvind. Mr. Thakur submitted that the witness used the expression "death" (mirtu) and not murder (hatiya). PW 9 further stated in Court that Sudhir and Rajeev had asked him to come with them saying that his son-in-law was suffering from acute abdominal pain. To my mind, the evidence of PW 9 has no adverse affect at all one the prosecution case. It is well known that in order to save a close relative from sudden shock, people generally avoid suddenly breaking the news of death, murder etc. It is, therefore, quite understandable that PW 9 was initially told that his son-in-law was very ill and might not survive and was told the full facts only gradually. There is also nothing in the use of the word "mirtu" by him instead of "hatiya". 46. Coming now to the inherent value of the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant Mr. Thakur pointed out that there were different, versions of the manner of killing. He pointed out that in the FIR the informant had said that the appellant stated that he had killed Arvind by drowning. But later on the manner of killing was changed and before the Court the prosecution witnesses stated that Ramdahin stated before them that he killed Arvind by fists and by pressing hard his chest by stepping on it and then he deposited the dead body under water. Mr. But later on the manner of killing was changed and before the Court the prosecution witnesses stated that Ramdahin stated before them that he killed Arvind by fists and by pressing hard his chest by stepping on it and then he deposited the dead body under water. Mr. Thakur attributed this change in the manner of killing to the findings in the post-mortem report. From the evidence of PW 26, the main I.O. of the case, he pointed out that after the fardbeyan was recorded in the evening of 3.9.1993, he came back to take the statements of witnesses the following morning. But he found that none of the family members and witnesses of the case were present in the village and they had all gone for the post-mortem of the body. He was able to take the statements of witnesses only in the evening when they came back after the post-mortem. Mr. Thakur submitted that the change in the manner of killing was necessitated to bring it in accord with the findings of the post-mortem and in fact the appellant had not made any confession before anyone, stating the manner in which he had killed Arvind. 47. I am not impressed by the submission. First, it may be noted that in the latter part of the fardbeyan itself, it is stated that Arvind was killed either by assaulting or by drowning and his dead body was hid under water. Secondly, it must be appreciated that at the time the appellant was making the confession before, the large crowd, the father and the other family-members of the deceased would be mainly concerned with the fact that Arvind was killed by him and in finding out his body with his help. The precise manner in which Arvind was killed and the means implied by the appellant to kill him would only be incidental and secondary. Therefore, it is understandable that in the fardbeyan the manner of killing did not come out with any great precision. But in Court other witness who deposed on the point of confession consistently stated that Ramdahin said that he killed Arvind by hitting him with fist and by pressing hard his chest by climbing on it and then he deposited the dead body under water. But in Court other witness who deposed on the point of confession consistently stated that Ramdahin said that he killed Arvind by hitting him with fist and by pressing hard his chest by climbing on it and then he deposited the dead body under water. In the statements of PWs in Court, there is hardly any inconsistency in regard to the manner in which the appellant killed Arvind. 48. Mr. Thakur next submitted that from the prosecution evidence, it was clear that the so called confession was obtained from the appellant by threat and inducement. He pointed out that in the fardbeyan it was said that out of fear he (Ramdahin) stated..........(tab woh dar se bataye ki......). He further pointed out that PW 4 stated before the Court (para 14) that on being persuaded by people Ramdahin said (log samjhaye to Ramdahin ne kaha); PW 5 stated (para 7) that on persuasion Ramdahin stated (samjhane bujhane par Ramdahin ne kaha); PW 7 stated (para 8) that on being cajoled (oos ne Ramdahin ko polha (phusla) kar puchha to) and PW 20 (para 3) stated that Ramdahin was not telling but after a long time and after much persuasion Ramdahin said (magar bahut der ke baad mananey par Ramdahin Babu bola). Mr. Thakur submitted that the prosecution evidence clearly showed that confession was elicited from Ramdahin by inducement, if not by threat. 49. I am unable to agree and the submission appears to me to be based on semantics. The prosecution witnesses are simple, rustic people and in their natural way all that they are trying to say is that initially the appellant was not disclosing what he had done to Arvind but he came out with the truth by and in the end he told that he had killed Arvind and had deposited his body under water. I am satisfied that the extra-judicial confession of Ramdahin was not obtained by inducement or coercion. It was voluntary and it was quite reliable and fit to be accepted by the Court. 50. Mr. Thakur submitted that apart from the manner of killing there was also certain discrepancies in the statements of witnesses on the point of recovery of body by the appellant. On a careful scrutiny of the witnesses statements, I do not find any inconsistency or discrepancy worth the name. 51. 50. Mr. Thakur submitted that apart from the manner of killing there was also certain discrepancies in the statements of witnesses on the point of recovery of body by the appellant. On a careful scrutiny of the witnesses statements, I do not find any inconsistency or discrepancy worth the name. 51. But there is another aspect of the matter that was nagging me all through the hearing of the appeal. It is noted above that the doctor was not examined and the post-mortem report of the deceased was not formally made an exhibit before the trial Court. I was having a little doubt whether it was a case of accidental drowning in flood waters and whether the appellant getting scared tried to flee away and later under crowd pressure he made the confession of his guilt. In order to set at rest my own doubt, I examined the post-mortem report that lies on the record and the post-mortem report completely removed whatever doubt I had in mind. From the post-mortem report, it is clear that it is not a case of death by accidental drowning. In fact Arvind did not die as a result of drowning. The second ante-mortem injury on his person was grievous and dangerous to life and it was caused due to application of pressure over chest by some hard and blunt object and death was caused due to asphyxia and shock as a result of suffocation and it was only after death that his body was jumped under water. 52. On a careful consideration of all the materials on record and on hearing Mr. Thakur appearing for the appellant and Mr. Jaiswal representing the State. I am satisfied that the prosecution case against the appellant was proved beyond all reasonable doubt; his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the Penal Code was fully justified and well arrived at and the judgment and order passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference in appeal. 53. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.M.Prasad, J. 54 I agree.