Madhya Pradesh High Court
Madan Lal @ Mandu vs The State Of M.P. on 22 June, 2017
(1)
Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
D.B. : (1) Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Mahajan.
(2) Hon'ble Shri Justice C.V. Sirpurkar.
Criminal Appeal No. 1809/2003
Madanlal @ Mandu S/o Chamru
Goand, aged about 50 years,
Occupation-Kastkari, R/o village
Nagarbada, P.S. Changotola, Tah.
and Distt. Balaghat (M.P.).
App ellant
V E R S U S
The State of M.P.,
Through P.S. Changotola, Distt.
Balaghat (M.P.).
Respondent
..................................................................................
For Appellant : Smt. Durgesh Gupta, learned counsel.
For Respondent/ : Shri Y.D. Yadav, learned Panel Lawyer.
State
...................................................................................
J U D G M E N T
(Pronounced on the 22 n d Day of June, 2017) Per : Rajendra Mahajan J .
The appellant-accused impugns the judgment and order dated 10.09.2003 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balaghat in Sessions Trial No.107 of 2003, thereby convicting and sentencing him under Section 302 IPC to suffer life imprisonment.
2. Briefly stated, the case of prosecution is as follows:- (2)
Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 (2.1) On 10.05.2003, at about 5:30 P.M. complainant Bholaram (PW-1) made an oral FIR at Police Station Changotola of Balaghat district stating that he is a police Patel of his native village Nagarbada. Today, in the noon time he was sitting with his son Teerathlal (PW-9) outside of his house. At that time, Madanlal @ Mandu, the appellant-accused herein, came to his house. He asked him (the appellant) about his nervousness. Thereupon, he told him (the complainant) that today at about 11:00 A.M. he came to his house after attending a marriage ceremony. He asked his wife Mahatrin Bai (since deceased) to cook a meal for him. Whereupon, she badly abused him. In a fit of rage, he killed her by inflicting injuries on her neck with an axe and her dead body is lying in his house. Having said so, he left his house. To verify the truthfulness of his statement, he, Badu Gond, Nanhu Gond, Bhadu Gond and others (not-examined) went to his house. There, he saw deceased Mahatrin Bai lying in a pool of blood with (3) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 injuries on her neck. Thus, he (the appellant) murdered his wife. Head Constable Bhaulal (PW-8) reduced the oral FIR made by complainant Bholaram into writing being Ex.P-2 and he registered a case against the appellant under Section 302 IPC at Crime No. 27 of 2003.
(2.2) Preetam Singh (PW-10), the Sub Inspector and SHO of the said police station, took over the investigation. On 11.05.2013, he proceeded the place of occurrence and in the presence of witnesses prepared the inquest report Ex.P-9, drew site-plan Ex.P-3, collected samples of plain soil and soil smeared with blood vide seizure memo Ex.P-8 from the scene of crime. Thereafter, he sent the dead body of the deceased for post-
mortem with requisition letter Ex.P-13. In the course of further investigation, he arrested the appellant on 11.05.2003 vide arrest memo Ex.P-5 and interrogated him and prepared his disclosure statement Ex.P-7 in his own words and later, he recovered at his (4) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 instance one axe and his blood-stained clothes from his house vide seizure memo Ex.P-6 in the presence of the witnesses. He also recorded the case diary statements of the witnesses who are conversant with the facts of the case. He sent the seized articles, samples of soil and the deceased's clothes which she was wearing at the time of incident for forensic examinations to the FSL Sagar, which sent in Report Ex.P-15.
(2.3) Dr. D.K. Rangare (PW-6) conducted the post-
mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased at the Primary Health Centre Hatta on 11.05.2003. He gave the post-mortem report Ex.P-10. According to his opinion, the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal.
(2.4) Upon completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
3. The learned Sessions Judge framed the charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC. He pleaded not guilty to the charge. Thereupon, he was put to trial. (5)
Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 The appellant was questioned under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. about the incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing against him in the case. He denied all of them. He took the defence that two young male relatives of complainant Bholaram (PW-1) had illicit relations with his deceased-wife and they murdered her in the course of dispute. He has also land-disputes with complainant Bholaram, his son Tirathlal and Preetlal (PW-2), the husband of village Kotwar Vipto Bai (PW-4). Thus, they bear enmity with him. For the aforesaid reasons, they falsely implicated him in the case. However, the appellant did not adduce any documentary or oral evidence to substantiate his defence.
4. Having considered and analyzed the evidence of all the prosecution witnesses, the defence plea and the material on record, the learned Sessions Judge held the appellant guilty of committing murder of his wife/deceased after dismissing his plea of defence, thereby convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him thereunder as stated in para-1 of this judgment. Feeling aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said verdict, the appellant has approached this court by filing this appeal. Be it noted that the appellant filed jail appeal and later Smt. (6) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 Durgesh Gupta, learned counsel, appeared on his behalf to plead his case.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is mainly based upon extra-judicial confession. As per the FIR, complainant Bholaram is a police Patel of village Nagarbada. Therefore, the extra- judicial confession made before him by the appellant is inadmissible in the evidence. She submitted that Tirathlal has also stated that the appellant has made extra-judicial confession in his presence before his father complainant Bholaram. Therefore, his evidence is not reliable being interested witness. She submitted that it is well-settled in law that extra-judicial confession is a weak type of evidence by itself and the impugned judgment is mainly based upon the extra-judicial confession. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.
6. In reply, learned Panel Lawyer submitted that though the impugned judgment is mainly based on the extra- judicial confession, yet there is also supportive evidence on record. He submitted that only on the basis of the extra- judicial confession the conviction can be made. In support of this contention, he placed reliance upon a decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Baskaran and (7) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , (2014) 5 SCC 765,. On the basis of the aforesaid submissions, he supported the impugned judgment and prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merits and substance.
7. We have earnestly considered the rival submissions made across the Bar and perused the impugned judgment and all the material on record.
8. First point for our consideration is whether the deceased suffered a homicidal death?
9. Autopsy surgeon D.K. Rangare (PW-6) has deposed that on 11.05.2003, he conducted the post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased. He noticed that the deceased's wearing clothes were stained with blood. He found following injuries:-
External injuries
(i) A wound on the left side of neck of size 4'' X 3'' X 2''. The major vessels and muscles underneath the wound were cut off and the colour of wound was blackish-red.
(ii) A wound on the left side of neck at the angle of mandible of size 5'' X 3'' X 4''. The colour of wound was blackish-red. The major vessels (8) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 and muscles beneath the wound were cut off.
(iii) A wound on the left scapular region of size 4'' X 1'' X 3''. The colour of wound was blackish red.
Internal injuries The left part of heart was full of blood and other organs were normal. There were no fractures in the cervical vertebrae of the neck.
10. Dr. D.K. Rangare has opined that the deceased died of haemorrhagic shock because the main vessels of her neck were cut off. Thus, the nature of her death was homicidal. He has also proved the post-mortem report Ex.P-
10. He has admitted in para-14 of his cross-examination that on account of inadvertence he has not mentioned in the post-mortem report that the deceased had suffered a homicidal death. In our opinion this is a small mistake. Therefore, this mistake does not make any dent on the reliability of his evidence. Upon the perusal of his cross- examination as a whole, we find that the defence had not asked any material question upon the post-mortem examination and his opinion. We, therefore, place full (9) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 reliance upon his evidence. Upon his evidence, we hold that the cause of death of the deceased was homicidal.
11. As is evident from para-2.1 of this judgment that the prosecution case is mainly based on the extra-judicial confession of the appellant. Therefore, first we will notice what are the legal principles/propositions of law for deciding a case mainly based on the extra-judicial confession.
12. In the case of Sahadevan and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu , (2012) 6 SCC 403, the Supreme Court in para- 15 of the decision had considered a catena of its earlier pronouncements based upon extra-judicial confession and in para-16 of the decision had laid down following principles which would made an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of the conviction of an accused. The Supreme court has also stated that these precept would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused:-
(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.
(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.(10)
Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3
(iii) It should inspire confidence.
(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.
(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.
13. In the light of the aforestated legal principles, we shall examine the evidence on record.
14. Bholaram (PW-1), who is the complainant, has deposed that in the noon-time of 10.05.2003 he was in his house. At that time, the appellant came to his house and told him that he had killed his wife. At first glance, he thought that he was kidding. Moments later, he glanced at his wearing clothes and noticed that his clothes were stained with blood. Thereupon, he asked him to go to Police Station Changotola and to state the police what he told him.
15. As argued by the learned counsel for the appellant, this witness is a police Patel as per FIR Ex.P-2. Therefore, his evidence, which is in the nature of extra-judicial confession, is inadmissible in evidence. We, therefore, first consider the said contention. Teerathlal (PW-9) is the son of this witness and he is a teacher by profession. He has (11) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 stated in para-2 of his deposition that his father (complainant Bholaram) is a permanent Patel of the village. As such, the villagers informed him first regarding any untoward event occurred in the village. Other prosecution witnesses have stated that complainant Bholaram is the Mukaddam of their village. We may take the judicial notice that in the State of Madhya Pradesh there is no practice whereby the police appoint a person as police Patel. At the most, complainant Bholaram may be village Patel. A Division Bench of this court in the case of Hemraj Vs. State of M.P. , 2013 (5) MPHT 80, has held that as per Section 230 of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and Section 40 Cr.P.C., village Chokidar and village Patel shall liable to inform the police about any crime committed under their territorial jurisdiction. Therefore, they are not police officers. Hence, the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before complainant Bholaram being village Patel is admissible in the evidence. In the light of the ruling, we brush aside the aforesaid legal objection.
16. Upon the careful reading of the evidence given by complainant Bholaram, we find that except some minor contradictions and discrepancies, nothing has been elicited by the defence to discredit his evidence though he has been (12) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 subjected to gruelling cross-examination. Therefore, we find that his evidence inspires full confidence.
17. Teerathlal (PW-9) has deposed that complainant Bholaram is his father and he is a teacher by profession. He has further deposed that in the noon-time of 10.05.2003 he was sitting with his father in his house. At that time, the appellant came and told his father that he had killed his wife. Whereupon, his father asked him as to why had he killed his wife? Thereupon, he said that he had a quarrel with his wife over the cooking of a meal for him. In the course of which, he killed his wife with an axe and her dead body was lying in his house. He also noticed stains of blood on his wearing clothes. His father asked him to report the matter to the police. We find that the defence has cross- examined this witness at length but failed to elicit any evidence to impugn the veracity of his testimony. Thus, the evidence of this witness corroborates that the appellant had made an extra-judicial confession before complainant Bholaram in the presence of this witness immediately after the incident.
18. Complainant Bholaram has further stated that after the appellant had left his house, he went to the house of village Kotwar Vipto Bai (PW-4) and inquired from her about (13) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 the said incident. She expressed ignorance. Meanwhile, Bodi Gond and Nanhu Gond of his village came to the house of Vipto Bai. With them, he went to the appellant's house, where they saw the dead body of the deceased in a pool of blood. Upon his request, Vipto Bai accompanied him to lodge the report of the incident at Police Station Changotola. On the way, her husband Preetlal (PW-2) met them. He narrated him the incident. Thereupon, Vipto Bai returned to her house. He and Preetlal went to the Police Station Changotola and he lodged FIR Ex.P-2. Vipto Bai and her husband Preetlal have corroborated his evidence in material particulars in their evidence. Upon the careful reading of cross-examinations of the trio, we find that there are consistences in their evidence on material points except some minor inconsistencies and contradictions which do not go to the root of the prosecution case. Thus, Vipto Bai and Preetlal also corroborate the aforestated evidence of complainant Bholaram.
19. Complainant Bholaram and his son Teerathlal have testified that the appellant confessed before them the killing of his wife in the noon of 10.05.2003. As per FIR Ex.P-2, complainant Bholaram lodged the report at about 5:30 P.M. of the same day. Therefore, it is evident that he (14) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 lodged the report of the incident on the basis of the extra- judicial confession made by the appellant before him within three hours from the time of incident, having travelled with others from his village Nagarbada to Police Station Changotola on foot. In this backdrop, we would say that there is no interpolation or exaggeration in the FIR on the other hand it was spontaneously lodged by complainant Bholaram.
20. Upon the critical analysis of evidence of complainant Bholaram supported by the evidence of aforesaid prosecution witnesses on all the material points, we hold that the appellant voluntarily made extra-judicial confession to him in the presence of his son Teerathlal that he had murdered his wife/the deceased.
21. Investigating Officer Preetam Singh (PW-10) has stated that on 11.05.2003 he arrested the appellant. He interrogated him in the presence of complainant Bholaram and Teerathlal. The appellant told him that he had hidden an axe and his blood stained clothes in his house and he offered to get them seized. On the basis thereof, he prepared disclosure statement Ex.P-7 in his words. Thereafter, the appellant, the aforesaid witnesses and he went to his house, where at the instance of the appellant, (15) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 he seized the aforesaid articles vide seizure memo Ex.P-6. He has also stated that he had noticed the blood stains on the seized axe. This part of evidence of this witness is fully corroborated by the aforesaid witnesses. We have carefully perused their cross-examinations and we find that there is nothing in their cross-examinations to disbelieve their evidence. Thus, we hold that the investigating officer Preetam Singh had seized blood stained clothes and the axe at the instance of the appellant.
22. As per FSL report Ex.P-15, a sample of blood stained soil collected from the place of occurrence, the blood- stained articles namely axe, kurta and dhoti, which were seized at the instance of the appellant, and blood-stained sari and blouse, which were collected from the dead body of the deceased, had human blood. The report further says that the axe and the dhoti contained human blood group "A". However, the blood group could not be detected on the remaining articles because of inconclusive test results. The appellant has not explained in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or otherwise as to why stains of human blood were found on his kurta and dhoti and the axe seized from his possession. There is no reason on record to disbelieve the report. Therefore, we use the report in (16) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 evidence in terms of Section 293 Cr.P.C. and we hold that the report also connects the appellant with the murder of the deceased.
23. The appellant has taken the defence that the two young male relatives of complainant Bholaram had illicit relations with his deceased-wife and that they murdered her over a dispute. Complainant Bholaram and all the material prosecution witnesses flatly rejected the said defence in their cross-examinations. As per the evidence of Vipto Bai (PW-4), she is the neighbour of the deceased. She has stated in para-6 of her cross-examinations that the deceased was a woman of good character. Upon the perusal of the depositions of all the material witnesses, we find that the defence has not disclosed even the names of the two young men who had illicit relations with the deceased as alleged. We, therefore, hold that the aforesaid defence is palpably vague, false and baseless having rejected outright the same.
24. In the case of Baskaran and another (supra), the accused made an extra-judicial confession before the village administrative officers. One of them stood by the extra- judicial confession made before him in his evidence. On the basis of his evidence and the supportive evidence available (17) Cri mi n al Appe al N o. 1 80 9 /2 00 3 on record, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of the accused under Sections 376(2)(g), 302 and 201 IPC. Thus, we find support from this ruling in holding the appellant guilty of committing murder of his wife.
25. In view of the preceded close analysis of evidence on record, reasons and discussions, we do not find any infirmity on facts and law in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Consequently, we uphold the impugned judgment dismissing the appeal.
(Rajendra Mahajan) (C.V. Sirpurkar)
Judge Judge
ac/-