Premanus Lakda vs State of M.P.

This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 3-9-1996 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar, Distt. Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 111/1996 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 302 and 201, IPC and sentencing him to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 302, IPC and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 500/- u/s 201, IPC with default stipulations. Facts of the case in brief are that on 21-3-1996 Began Ram-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat, Bhandari, District Raigarh, lodged a written report (Exh. P-2) before the police alleging that on 22-2-1996 the accused/appellant had killed his wife Antonia and buried the dead body on the bank of river. Based on this report, FIR (Exh. P-1) was registered by the police on 21-3-1996 itself against the accused/ appellant u/s 302/201, IPC. Memorandum of accused/appellant (Exh. P-5) was recorded on 22-3-1996, wherein he has stated that in the intervening night of 22-2-1996 and 23-2-1996, when his wife Antonia was sleeping in the house, he killed her with the help of axe and after informing the entire incident to his father Tiyophyl and brother Donatush and after consulting them, body of the deceased was wrapped and tied with rope and wood. He then took the dead body to the bank of river and buried the same with the help of his brother Donatush. While returning, he had thrown the wood on the way and kept the axe, spade and sari in his house, which he would get recovered. Based on this memorandum, seizure of axe, spade, pillow, sari, photo was made at the instance of accused vide Exh. P-6, recovery of saal wood with the help of which body was taken was made vide Exh. P-7, whereas the garments belonging to the deceased and her chain were recovered vide Exh. P-8. On disclosure of the accused/appellant, dead body was exhumed in presence of Executive Magistrate vide Panchnama (Exh. P-3). FSL report is Exh. P-14 according to which blood stains were found in the articles such as gudri, petticoat, blouse, bra, petticoat, hair, mala and rope. After investigation, charge-sheet was filed on 2-5-1996 against the accused/appellant, his brother and father namely Donatush and Tiyophyl respectively, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of IPC. Court below also framed the charge under the same sections.

In support of its case prosecution has examined 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant and other co-accused persons were also recorded u/s 313 of the Cr. PC., in which they have denied the charges levelled against them and pleaded their innocence and false implication in the case.

By the impugned judgment, the Court below has acquitted the co-accused persons namely Donatush and Tiyophyl of the charges levelled against them, but convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned above.

Counsel for the accused/appellant submits that conviction of the accused/appellant is based on the statements of Began Ram (P.W. 1), Clement Minz (P.W. 2) and Charanram (P.W. 3) before whom the deceased is stated to have made extra judicial confession, but as the said confession is not voluntary and has been made under pressure, same is not admissible under the law. She submits that body of the deceased was recovered from the bank of river an open and far off place from the house of accused/appellant easily accessible to anyone and thus, the appellant cannot be convicted. She submits that a very improbable story has been put forth by the prosecution where allegation of killing his own wife has been made against the accused/appellant.

On the other hand, Counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that apart from the extra judicial confession before P.W. 1 to P.W. 3, based on his memorandum body of the deceased was exhumed vide Exh. P-3 and likewise seizure of various articles was made vide Exhs. P-6 to P-8. He submits that there is no evidence to show that extra judicial confession made by the accused/appellant before number of witnesses was under any pressure and not voluntary and thus, conviction is strictly in accordance with law.

Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

Began Ram (P.W. 1) has stated that he knew accused/appellant and deceased Antonia. He has stated that in March, 1996, accused/appellant informed him in presence of other villagers that he had killed his wife. Thereafter, the appellant was taken to the police station, where report (Exh. P-1) was lodged. Clement Minz (P.W. 2) has started that he knew accused/appellant and deceased and on 21-3-1996 he was informed by the appellant that he had killed his wife Antonia with the help of axe and buried her dead body on the bank of river. He has stated that he called Village Panchayat where before the Panchas accused/appellant confessed the murder of his wife. Thereafter, appellant was sent to the Police Station and the report was lodged. According to him, appellant took all of them to the place, where dead body of his wife was buried and then the same was exhumed, Panchnamas (Exhs. P-3 and P-4) were prepared which were duly signed by him. He has stated that during police enquiry, appellant had informed that as on the date of incident his wife was going to Bombay despite his protest, he killed her with the help of axe near the river. Memorandum of the appellant (Exh. P-5) was recorded and based on that seizure was made vide Exh. P-6. He has stated that in his presence, seizure of Saal wood was made vide Exh. P-7. Charanram (P.W. 3) has stated that he knew the appellant and also the deceased. He has stated that there was a rumour in the village that Antonia was missing and, therefore, village meeting was called where on being asked the appellant confessed that he killed his wife and buried the dead body on the bank of river. Appellant further informed the villagers as to why he killed his wife. He has stated that body of the deceased was exhumed from the bank of river, memorandum (Exh. P-5) was recorded and based on that recovery of various articles was made vide Exhs. P-6, P-7 and P-8. Heeralal (P.W. 4) is the Patwari, who prepared spot map (Exh. P-9). Khristopher (P.W. 5) and Ilius (P.W. 6) are the witnesses of confessional statement made by the appellant before number of villagers. Tarsisius (P.W. 7) has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Dr. S. Toppo (P.W. 8) has stated that on 22-3-1996 one dead body was exhumed in presence of Executive Magistrate and other witnesses and then he has described about the physical condition of the said dead body. He also conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased vide Exh. P-11 along with Dr. S.K. Shrivastava. Surendra Giri (P.W. 9), Assistant Sub Inspector recorded the FIR (Exh. P-1). K.S. Dhruv (P.W. 10) is the Investigating Officer, who has supported the prosecution case.

Minute examination of the evidence makes it clear that on the date of incident, accused/appellant killed his wife Antonia with the help of axe and buried her dead body on the bank of river. Based on his memorandum (Exh. P-5), dead body of the deceased was exhumed by the police, Panchnama (Exh. P-3) was made in presence of Executive Magistrate, seizure of axe, spade, pillow, sari and photograph was vide Exh. P-6, recovery of Saal wood, which was used for taking the dead body of the deceased to the bank of river was made vide Exh. P-7, whereas garments belonging to the deceased, chain, rope, and sample of soil were seized vide Exh. P-8. Evidence also makes it clear that the appellant made extra-judicial confession before P.Ws. 1 to 3, who have duly supported the prosecution case. From the evidence, it is further clear that the extrajudicial confession made by the appellant was unambiguous, voluntary, without inducement or force and in a fit state of mind, therefore, credibility of the same cannot be doubted. That apart, based on the memorandum, recovery of various articles used in the offence has also been proved by the prosecution. Thus, considering the overall evidence as adduced by the prosecution, we find that the prosecution has been fully able to prove the charges against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, the judgment impugned convicting the accused/appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC. is just and proper and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly, dismissed. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds stand cancelled. He be sent to jail forthwith to serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposed on him.