State of Punjab vs Hari Om and anr.

S.D. Bajaj, J.

Fatherinlaw Gurdit Singh, motherinlaw Smt Devki and bridegroom Hari Om, all the three together, were prosecuted under section 302 read with section 34 and section 498A of the Indian Penal Code for having meted out cruel treatment to bride Krishna renamed Karamjit Kaur inside her matrimonial home for all the five years after her marriage with Hari Om and ultimately killed her in pursuance of their common intention, shared by all of them three by poisoning and burning on Ist March, 1986. Principal charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was against husband Hari Om alone.

Gurdit Singh accused was acquitted by the learned trial court in terms of section 232 of the Criminal Procedure Code on 26th May, 1988. Remaining two accused were, however, acquitted by the learned trial court on 3rd June, 1988 by giving them the benefit of doubt.

Feeling aggrieved from, the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 3rd June, 1988 of the bridegroom and the motherinlaw, the State of Punjab has filed Criminal Appeal No. 67DBA of 1989 in this Court. Father of the bride named Amar Singh has also filed Criminal Revision No. 1023 of 1988 against it as well. Vide order dated 7th February, 1989 Division Bench of this Court ordered the Criminal Revision aforesaid to be heard along with the main appeal.

We have heard Shri Randhir Singh, A.A.G. Punjab, for the appellant State, Shri, P.S. Kang, Advocate, for the respondents and have carefully perused the relevant material on record.

In paragraphs 14 and 15 of its impugned judgment of acquittal learned trial court spelt out the reasons for ordering it as follows :

"It would be seen that Krishna did not open her mouth to make any accusation against her husband incriminating him for her burn injuries on her person. There is absolutely no evidence to the contrary that she was unable to speak at the time of her medical examination. The first and the foremost reaction would have been to name Hari Om accused or any body else including Devki if she had been set on fire by one of them. There was nothing to check her from making statement before the Doctor while living his story of the burnt received by her. It is in the evidence that Hari Om accused was although admitted in the same hospital but in a separate room. There could be no person threatening or influencing her at the time she was being medically examined by the Doctor so as to unnerve her from making any statement against her husband or her in laws.

However, the prosecution projected Jarnail Singh of village Shamla to say that on 631986. Hari Om accused, Devki accused and Gurdit Singh father of Hari Om came to his house in his village when accused Hari Om made extrajudicial confession of having administered opium to Krishna and thereafter having poured kerosene oil on her and thereafter his mother Devki put her to fire, thus suggesting the accused had in fact committed the murder of Krishna and she did not commit suicide at the behest or the instigation of these accused. Now the evidence of extra judicial confession by itself is a weak type of evidence and especially in the instant case it has hardly any legs to stand on. Jarnail Singh PW belongs to village Shamla which is the village of the maternal uncle of his wife Krishna. If the allegations of the prosecution are accepted Hari Om accused very well knew that the Sarpanch Jarnail Singh is very close to the maternal uncle of Krishna. Admittedly there is a Panchayat which includes the Panches, Sarpanch in village Kularn. There is no reason as to why the accused would be coming specially to Jarnail Singh for making a confession and asking him for effecting a compromise knowing fully well that the case had gone to the police and in such a situation to compromise can be effected.

It appears that the story of extrajudicial confession was developed only after the receipt of the report of the Chemical Examiner by the police otherwise the intake of opium by the deceased could not have been explained by the prosecution."

Speaking of extrajudicial confession like the present one their lordships of the Supreme Court observed in Rahim Beg v. State of U. P. AIR 1973 SC 343; Lakhanpal v. The State of M. P., AIR 1979 SC 1620; Haramba Brahma and another v. State of Assam, AIR 1982 SC 1595 and Sonia Bahera v. State of Orissa, 1983 Recent Criminal Reports 302 : AIR 1983 SC 491 as follows :

"There was no history of previous association between the witness and the two accused as may justify the inference that the accused could repose confidence in him. In the circumstances, it seems highly improbable that the two accused would go to Mohd. Nasim Khan and blurt out a confession. It is also not clear as, to why the two accused should try to run away on seeing the police party coming with Mohd. Nasim Khan if Mohd. Nasim Khan had gone to the police at the request of the accused.

The evidence shows that witness was not known to the appellant and therefore, it is difficult to believe that the appellant would make a confession to a person who was not known to him at all. It is wholly unsafe to accept the evidence of the extrajudicial confession of the appellant.

Witness speaks of an extrajudicial confession by three accused persons having been simultaneously made and when reproduced in his language, it makes no sense. It is dangerous to rely upon such extrajudicial confession even if the witness''s credentials are not in question. The question that agitates is what language was used by each accused, in what words confession was made and whether each used the same language ? Evidence of the witness, does not reproduce the words used by each accused.

High Court wrongly accepted the evidence on this extrajudicial confession without examining the credentials of PW 2 Bistriram; without ascertaining the words used; without referring to the decision of this Court to be presently mentioned wherein it is succinctly stated that extrajudicial confession to afford a piece of reliable evidence must pass the test of reproduction of exact words, the reason or motive for confession and person selected in whom confidence is reposed.

Extrajudicial confession stated to have been made by the accused to PW 3, Markanda and PW 5 Jatia. This extrajudicial confession is stated to have been made by the appellant after their return from the Police Station. The police do not appear to have examined PW 5 after the alleged extra judicial confession was made.

The extra judicial confession stated to have been made by the appellant in the circumstances of this case, was rightly rejected by the Trial Judge and the High Court was not right in relying upon it as a circumstance against the appellant."

Supreme Court observations reproduced above completely discredit the extrajudicial confession allegedly made by the three accused to Jarnail Singh PW 2.

In result both the Criminal Appeal as also Criminal Revision are tendered wholly without merit and are consequently dismissed.