Aema Gounder vs State

S. Jagadeesan, J.—The appellant/accused was charge sheeted for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C., for causing the death of his sister-in-law

Manimegalai on 22.3.1993 at 11 A.M. at Mattukaranur Kattuvalavu.

The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the extra judicial confession made by the appellant to P.W.1, the Village Administrative Officer

and the subsequent recovery of M.O.3 the blood stained wooden log as well as M.O.8 the blood stained lungi of the appellant.

The case of the prosecution is that on 22.3.1993, at 12 Noon, the appellant met P.W.1 and told him that he murdered his sister-in-law

Manimegalai, the wife of his elder brother P.W.2 and left her in the house. He did so as he suspected her fidelity and also for her attitude of

disrespect to the appellant''s brother, the husband of the deceased. P.W.1 recorded the said statement of the appellant in Ex.P.1. After recording

the statement, P.W.1 went to the scene of occurrence along with the appellant. He saw the dead body of the deceased. However, the brother of

the appellant P.W.2 was not there. On seeing the dead body, P.W.1 prepared the report Ex.P.2 and took the same along with the accused and

another servant to Omalur Police Station, where he handed over Ex.P.1 as well as Ex.P.2 and the appellant. P.W.8, the Sub Inspector of Police,

Omalur Police Station received Exs.P.1 and P.2 at 2.30 P.M on 22.3.1993 , registered the report as Crime No 329 of 1993 and prepared the

express report and forwarded the same to the higher authorities as well as to the court. The printed copy of the express report is Ex.P.16. The

appellant/accused was arrested. P.W.9, the Inspector of Police received the copy of the express F.I.R and took up the investigation. He went to

Omalur Police Station at 3.15 P.M. and examined the appellant and recorded the statement. Thereafter, he went to the scene of occurrence along

with the appellant and prepared the observation mahazar, Ex.P.3. He also prepared the rough sketch Ex.P.17 and held inquest between 5.00 P.M

and 7.30 P.M. and he examined the witnesses. Ex.P.18 is the inquest report. He sent the body of the deceased with the requisition Ex.P.9 for

post-mortem. He also recovered M.O.2 the blood stained earth and sample earth from the scene of occurrence under the mahazar Ex.P.4. He

seized M.O.3 from the backyard of the house of P.W.2, the brother of the appellant under Ex.P.5. He returned to the Police Station at 9.00 P.M

and recovered M.O.8 the lungi of the appellant under Ex.P.19 Form No.95. On 23.3.1993 he forwarded the materials to the Court with a

requisition to send the same for chemical examination.

P.W.5, the Doctor attached to the Government Hospital, Omalur conducted the post mortem on the body of the deceased. He found the

following injuries:-

1.A lacerated injury of 4cm x 2cm x 2cm bone deep on the right fore head.

2.A lacerated injury of 4cm x 3 cm x bone deep on the right side parietal region.

3.A lacerated injury of 5 cm x 3 cm x bone deep on the mid parietal region near the sagittal suture.

4.A contusion of 7 cm x 5 cm on the left cheek.

5.A lacerated injury of 3cm x 2 cm. on the left cheek.

6.A lacerated injury of 5 cm x 3cm x 1 cm on the left parietal region.

Ex.P.10 is the post-mortem certificate and the Doctor is of the opinion that the injuries on the head of the deceased are sufficient in the normal of

course of nature to cause death of the deceased.

5.After the receipt of the Chemical Examiner''s and Serologist''s reports, the charge sheet was laid against the appellant u/s 302 I.P.C. on

30.6.1993.

6.During the trial, the prosecution examined nine witnesses and also marked as many as 19 documents. After considering the evidence and other

materials available on record, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence u/s 302 I.P.C and convicted and sentenced him

to undergo life imprisonment. The present appeal has been filed against the said judgment and conviction.

7.The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution solely relied upon the extra judicial confession of the appellant made to

P.W.1. There are certain vital discrepancies in the statement of the appellant and the evidence of P.W.1. Further the learned Sessions Judge having

rejected the extra judicial confession made by the appellant,found the appellant guilty only on the basis of the recovery of M.O.3 the blood stained

wooden log. When the extra judicial confession of the appellant was disbelieved, the conviction cannot be solely on the basis of the recovery of

M.O.3 alone. Hence, the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower court are liable to be set aside.

On the contrary, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor contended that the reasoning given by the learned Sessions Judge to reject the extra

judicial confession made by the appellant is not correct. There is absolutely no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.1 and as such, the extra

judicial confession made by the appellant coupled with the recovery would clearly establish the guilt of the appellant and as such, no interference is

called for in the judgment of the court below.

9.The question for consideration is:- Whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the appellant/accused beyond reasonable doubt?

It is admitted that the prosecution is relying upon the extra judicial confession statement of the appellant to P.W.1 and the recovery made

during the investigation. The Supreme Court in the case of ""STATE OF A.P. .VS. SHAIK MAZHAR"" (2001) 3 Crimes 126 (SC) has

categorically held that if the extra judicial confession is found reliable, the same can be made sole basis of conviction. On the above dictum laid by

the Apex Court, it is for this court to consider as to whether the extra judicial confession of the appellant can be accepted. Ex.P.1 is the statement

given by the appellant to P.W.1 almost immediately after the occurrence on 22.3.1993. The statement is given at 12 Noon wherein the appellant

has narrated as to why he did the murder and also he confessed that he caused the death of his sister-in-law at 11.00 A.M and left the body in the

house. Immediately after the recording of the confessional statement of the accused, P.W.1 went to the scene of occurrence and on verification, he

found the statement of the accused was true and thereafter, P.W.1 took the accused to the police station at 2.30 P.M. P.W.8, the Sub Inspector

of Police and P.W.9 the Inspector of Police corroborate the evidence of P.W.1 with regard to the production of the accused/appellant at the

police station and the register of the case and further investigation. There is absolutely no suggestion in the cross-examination of P.W.1 as to why

he should implicate the appellant in the case. If really any implication is to be made by the prosecution, they could have easily implicated P.W.2,

the husband of the deceased. P.W.2, the brother of the appellant as well as the husband of the deceased though gave statement u/s 161 during the

investigation that the accused had done it, before the court he turned hostile.

11.In the statement, the accused has stated that he beat the deceased with the wooden log. The police recovered the same in the backyard of the

house of P.W.2 with blood stains. The Serologist''s report also reveals that M.O.3 the wooden log used as the weapon contains blood stains and

M.O.8 the lungi of the appellant also contains blood stains. There is absolutely no explanation forthcoming from the appellant as to how his lungi

contains blood stains. In fact, the counsel for the appellant before this court contended that the lungi of the appellant might have contained blood

stains as he might have gone closer to the dead body of the deceased. When P.W.2, the husband remains away without any blood stains, the

explanation of the counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted.

12.On the above discussion, we are of the view that there is absolutely no motive for P.W.1 to foist a case against the appellant, especially on the

basis of an extra judicial confession. When there is no reason to discard the evidence of P.W.1, we are inclined to accept the same. In such

circumstance, as laid down by the Apex Court in the case referred to above, viz., ""STATE OF A.P. .VS. SHAIK MAZHAR"" (2001) 3 Crimes

126 (SC) this is a case, where the extra judicial confession can be sole basis for convicting the appellant for the offence u/s 302 I.P.C.

Accordingly, we confirm the judgment, the conviction and the sentence imposed by the Court below.

13.The Criminal Appeal is dismissed. Since the appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to

secure the presence of the appellant to undergo the remaining period of sentence.