Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Guru Dayal Singh vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 February, 1987
Equivalent citations: 1987WLN(UC)272
Author: Ashok Kumar Mathur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Mathur
JUDGMENT Ashok Kumar Mathur, J.
1. This is an appeal by the accused appellant against the judgement dated 31-10-1981 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh where by he convicted the accused appellant under section 302 IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
2. The facts giving rise to this case are that the accused is a resident of Chak Uttamsingwala. Mst. Prasanna Kaur, wife of the accused, was a habitual drunkard. On 28-12-1980 at about 2 p.m. when the accused appellant was alone with his wife at his house he murdered his wife with a Takua, a sharp edged weapon, by giving the blows with that Takua on her neck and other parts of the body as a result of which she died. PW 4 Bugar Singh who is 12 years of age, son of the accused when returned from his school found that his mother Mst. Prasanna Kaur was lying dead and he also went to wards PW 3 Daljeet Singh's Dhani, PW 4 Bagar Singh informed that his father was running from his house and was informed about this incident to PW 5 Naka Singh and his brother Deep singh. Meanwhile, the accused want to the house of PW3 Daljeet singh where PW6 Nichhatrasingh was also present and the accused confessed before them his guilt that he has killed his wife as she was a habitual drunkard. PW 3 Daljeet Singh and PW 6 Nichhatra Singh reprimanded the accused and asked the persons who were sitting with them to keep a watch over the accused and they proceeded to the police station Hanumangarh to report about the incident. They informed PW 9 Richhpal Singh about the incident and filed a written First Information Report Ex. P 2. On the basis of this First Information Report a case under section 302 IPC was registered against the accused and investigation was taken up by the Deputy Superintendent of Police PW 2 Ranjeet Singh. He reached the scene of occurrence and saw that the deceased was lying in a pool of blood and a Takua was also found nearby the deceased. The body of the deceased was taken into custody, inquest report was prepared, site-plan was also prepared of the scene of occurrence and the Takua was seized from the scene of the occurrence. After close of investigation, the accused was sent for trial under section 302 IPC before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No. 1, Hanumangarh.
3. The prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and got a number of documents exhibited. The accused pleaded not guilty and denied the whole incident.
4. Learned trial Judge, after holding the trial found that the extra judicial confession made before PW 3 Daljeet Singh and PW 6 Nichhatra Singh as reliable and convicted the accused appellant under section 302, IPC.
5. As the accused has preferred the present appeal from jail and he was not represented by any counsel, therefore, Mr. Rajendra Singhvi, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the accused appellant.
6. Learned Amicus Curiae submitted that the extra judicial confession made by the accused before PW 3 Daljeet Singh and PW 6 Nichhatra Singh cannot be said to be voluntary and such an extra judicial confession is not admissible. Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that the conviction on such salander piece of evidence like extra judicial confession is not sufficient to convict the accused.
7. We have gone through the whole record and the statements of PW 3 Daljeet Singh and PW 6 Nichhatra Singh before whom the extra judicial confession is said to have been made. So far as the legal position regarding extra-judicial confession is concerned the same has been settled by a series of decisions of their Lordships of the Supreme Court that if an extra judicial confession is trust worthy and connects the accused with the commission of crime then such extra judicial confession is sufficient to convict the accused. In this connection, reference may be made to Mulk Raj v. State of U.P. AIR 1959 SC 902 where in their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under:
An extra-judicial confession, if voluntary, can be relied upon by the Court along with other evidence in convicting the accused. The confession will have to be proved just like any other fact. The value of the evidence as to the confession just like any other evidence depends upon the veracity of the witness to whom it is made. It is true that the court requires the witness to give the actual words used by the accused as nearly as possible, but it is not an invariable rule that the Court should not accept the evidence, if not the actual words but the substance were given. It is for the Court having regard to the credibility of the witness, his capacity to understand the language in which the accused made the confession, to accept the evidence or not
8. Similarly, in Thimma v. The State of Mysore AIR 1971 AC 1871 their Lordship of the Supreme Court observed as under:
An extra judicial confession made to one who is not a person in authority and which is free from any suspicion as to its voluntary character and has also a ring of truth in it is admissible in evidence against the accused and deserves to be acted upon.
9. In the light of the legal position, we have to examine whether the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before PW 3 Daljeet Singh and PW 6 Nichhatra Singh is reliable and it has a ring of truth or not.
10. PW 3 Daljeet Singh is a person who is no where connected with any official position. Neither he is a Sarpanch nor is he any officer or connected with the officialdom. He was sitting at his Dhani and the accused reached there and confessed that since his wife is a habitual drunkard therefore he has done away her with Takua. This incident is of 28-12-1980 and soon thereafter the matter was reported by PW 3 Daljeet singh along with PW 6 Nichhatrasingh to the police. In pursuance of this information, the accused was also arrested on 30-12-1980 and it was found that deceased Prasanna Kaur wife of the accused was lying in a pool of blood and a Takua was also lying besides her. There is no suggestion any where in the statements of PW 3 Daljeet Singh and PW 6 Nichhatrasingh that the accused was induced or in any manner pressurised. The extra-judicial confession made by the accused after going to the house of PW 3 Daljeet singh on his own volition shows that the extra judicial confession made by the accused appears to be voluntary only. This extra-judicial confession is equally supported by the testimony of PW 6 Nichhatrasingh, who was also sitting with both of these PW 3 Daljeet singh at his house. Statements of both these witnesses were recorded on the same day by the police. Though PW 4 Bugar singh son of the deceased and the accused has not witnessed the incident of murder. All that he saw was that his father was leaving the house and going towards the house of PW 3 Daljeet Singh PW 4 Bugar singh cannot be said to be an eyewitness of the incident, but he is a witness that he was his father at the relevant time going from his house to the house of PW 3 Daljeet Singh. Thereafter, when he reached his house he saw that his mother was lying in a pool of blood. Thereafter the accused did not come back to his house. The extra-judicial confession and the attending circumstances clearly show that the extra-judicial confession made by the accused before PW 3 Daljeet Singh and PW 6 Nichhatrasingh appears to be voluntary, it is admissible and we can safely convict the accused on the basis of this extra judicial confession.
11. Thus, in the result we do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused is confirmed.