Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1029 (MP)

Ramkumar s/o Shyamle Choudhary v. State Of M. P.

2017-09-22

ANJULI PALO, VANDANA KASREKAR

body2017
JUDGMENT : ANJULI PALO, J. This appeal has been filed by the accused/appellant being aggrieved by judgment dated 7-5-2007 passed by 4th Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) in Sessions Trial No. 202/2006, whereby the appellant was convicted for the offences punishable under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of find further RI for 6 month and 5 years of RI with fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of find further RI for 3 month respectively. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 17-5-2006 at about 9-10 am the appellant caused death of his wife Parwati at his house and falsely claimed that his wife sustained fatal injury due to falling from the stairs of his house. Thereafter, Parwati was brought to the hospital by the appellant himself. Parwati died due to the injuries caused by the appellant. The appellant confessed before the family member of the deceased that he has caused the death of his wife by inflicting blows of an Axe. After completion of the interrogation, FIR was lodged against the appellant. Charge sheet was filed before the concerned Magistrate. 3. On committal of case before the trial Court, charges under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code have been framed by the trial Court. The appellant abjured his guilt and stated that he was falsely implicated by the police. After completing the trial, the trial Court held the appellant guilty for committing offences under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. 4. The above findings of the Court below have been challenged on the grounds that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses relied upon by the trial Court is full of improvements and contradiction. Further the evidence disclosed that deceased Parvati died due to fallen from stairs. The story of murder has been concocted by the prosecution. The learned trial Court wrongly relied upon the testimonies of prosecution witnesses, which are full of improvements and contradictions. The appellant prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and he be acquitted from the charges leveled against him. 5. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned Government Advocate has supported the findings of the trial Court with regard to the conviction. The appellant prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and he be acquitted from the charges leveled against him. 5. Heard both the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 6. Learned Government Advocate has supported the findings of the trial Court with regard to the conviction. The point for determination is that :— (i) Whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant can be relied upon for conviction (ii) Whether the appellant has caused death of his wife? 7. Under section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, the extrajudicial confession is admissible for conviction under certain conditions. 8. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the appellant is the husband of the deceased (Parwati). They both were residing together in their house. The death of the deceased also caused in their house in the presence of the appellant. Earlier the appellant stated in hospital that his wife has died due to falling from stairs. When the relatives of the deceased reached, thereafter the appellant stated that he caused death of his wife by an Axe. In this regard testimony of Phullu (PW1), Besakhiya (PW2), Pancham Choudhary father of deceased (PW7), Munnibai mother of deceased (PW10) is found reliable. Their evidence is fully corroborated by the medical evidence. Dr. Namdeo strongly denied the defence of the appellant that such head injury would have been caused to the deceased by falling from the stairs. As per Dr. K. L. Namdeo (PW18) the deceased was having a head injury, which was caused by the sharp and hard object. As similar as extra judicial confession of the appellant. We are also in agreement with the opinion of the Dr. K. L. Namdeo that incised wound size about 7 cm x 1/5 cm found on the back side of the head of the deceased. Fourth internal injury also found there. A fracture caused on occipital bone with severe bleeding and about one litre blood was collected at cervical cavity. There is no possibility that such injury was caused due to fallen from the height. 9. Hence, the extra judicial confession is found believable. This confession was given by the appellant before Phullu (PW1), Besakhiya (PW2), Pancham Choudhary father of deceased (PW7), Munnibai mother of deceased (PW10) and Dukodi Choudhary (PW13). They are the witnesses and they do not have any enmity with the appellant. 9. Hence, the extra judicial confession is found believable. This confession was given by the appellant before Phullu (PW1), Besakhiya (PW2), Pancham Choudhary father of deceased (PW7), Munnibai mother of deceased (PW10) and Dukodi Choudhary (PW13). They are the witnesses and they do not have any enmity with the appellant. Therefore, their testimony is found trustworthy. 10. Defence witness Narendra Kumar Dwivedi (DW1) has stated about the cause of death of deceased and stated that due to fallen from the roof of the appellant’s house, her head came into the contact of sharp edged stone plate. It is important that no stone has been produced by the appellant or his witnesses before the police. On the other hand, the police seized an Axe from the possession of the appellant which was used with heavy force on the back of the head of the deceased. 11. We find that there is no weakness in the prosecution case for the extrajudicial confession the appellant. The defence of the appellant as alleged cannot be acceptable. 12. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Rajaram, (2003) 8 SCC 180 that the extra judicial confession, if voluntary and true and made in fit case of mind, can be relied upon by the Court. The confession will have to be proved like any other threat. The value of the evidence as to confession, like any other evidence, depends upon the veracity of the witnesses to whom it has been made. The Court further expressed view that such confession can be relied upon and convection can be founded thereon, if the evidence about the confession comes from the mouth of witnesses, who appeared to be unbiased, not even remotely inimical to the accused and in respect of whom nothing is brought out which may tent to indicate that he may a motive of attributing and untruthful statement of the accused. 13. Hence, we find that the extrajudicial confession of the appellant is reliable. But after establishing his extrajudicial confession, he failed to produced his other family members to prove that the deceased was died in the accident. 14. On the contrary Pancham Choudhary father of deceased (PW7), Munnibai mother of deceased (PW10) and other relatives of the deceased unshakenly proved that the deceased was tortured by the appellant. But after establishing his extrajudicial confession, he failed to produced his other family members to prove that the deceased was died in the accident. 14. On the contrary Pancham Choudhary father of deceased (PW7), Munnibai mother of deceased (PW10) and other relatives of the deceased unshakenly proved that the deceased was tortured by the appellant. He did not like the deceased as his life partner. So many time, she informed about that to her family members. So the appellant has motive to cause death of his wife Parwati (deceased). Dr. R. K. Nema (PW8) found fracture in occipital parietal bone of both side up to temporal bone horizontally with hematoma, further he found an incised wound about 4’’ x 1½” x 5’’ deep over back side of her neck. He also found in cervical cavity about one litre blood was collected. This injury was caused by hard and sharp object and ante-mortem in nature. We rely on such opinion of the doctor (PW8) Dr. Nema, who ruled out the possibility that the death of the deceased was accidental in nature, was purely homicidal in nature. 15. We are convinced with the findings of the learned trial Court about the cause of death of deceased was intentionally suppressed by the appellant to escape himself to punish for causing death of his wife. We find that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under sections 302 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. No interference is warranted in the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. 16. A copy of this order be sent to the Court below for information along with its record.