Important Point
If an accused admits any incriminating circumstance appearing in evidence against him there is no warrant that such admission should altogether be ignored merely on ground that such admissions were advanced as a defence strategy.

Judgment

Thomas, J.-In this case of uxoricide the husband was found guilty by the Sess­sions Court but the High Court found him not guilty and acquitted him. That judgment of the High Court is in challenge in this appeal by special leave.

2. Prosecution case can be compendiously stated thus. The deceased “Omwati” was the young wife of the respondent-accused. They with their two little children were living together in the house of the respondent. Intermittent skirmishes used to erupt between them as the wife was accusing the husband for dissipating his money on alcoholic drinks. During the wee hours of 8.2.1970 respondent inflicted blows with a Phali (a spade like agricultural implement) on the head of the deceased. Her skull was smashed and she died on the spot. PW 2 (Ramey) who was working in the adjacent field, on hearing the screams of the deceased, rushed up and peeped through the window and witnessed re­spondent thrashing his wife with the said weapon. PW 2 made a hue and cry and some of the neighbours who heard the noise, ran to the place of occurrence. As the door of the room was bolted from inside they broke it open, over-powered the berserk assailant and trussed him up on a pole with a rope.

3. FIR was lodged by PW 1 Baljeet who was one of the persons rushed to the place of occurrence on hearing the noise of PW 2 (Ramey). Police after registering the case, reached the place of occurrence and took the tethered assailant into custody and proceeded to conduct investi­gation.

4. As the respondent too did not dispute the fact that his wife (deceased) was murdered by inflicting blows on her head it is unneces­sary to further consider the question whether death of the deceased was a case of homicide.

5. Learned Sessions Judge, on evaluation of the prosecution evidence, found that the accused had killed the deceased and then considered whether he did the act without knowing the nature of it by reason of any unsoundness of mind. Though the trial Judge felt that accused was not quite a normal person it was not possible to conclude that his cognitive faculties were so impaired as to deprive him of the capacity to know the nature of his acts. Accordingly, learned Sessions Judge convicted him under Section 302, IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life.

But a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court which heard his appeal felt that the evidence of PW 2 (Ramey), which is of crucial importance in this case, was not credit-worthy and at any rate it was not supported by other reliable evidence. The Division Bench did not attach any importance to the statement of the respondent which he made while being examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Proce­dure (‘Code’ for short’) wherein he practically admitted that he murdered his wife. Learned Judges took the view that the prosecution cannot succeed on the strength of what the accused said during exami­nation under Section 313 of the Code. Accordingly, the High Court sent the verdict of acquittal.

6. This being an appeal against acquittal we heard learned counsel for both sides in detail and scrutinised the evidence. In our considered opin­ion the High Court has gone wrong in holding that prosecution has failed to prove that the deceased was murdered by the accused. High Court has not given due regard to the cogent circumstances leading to the only conclusion that deceased was slashed to death by the accused.

7. As a legal proposition we cannot agree with the High Court that statement of an accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code does not deserve any value or utility if it contains inculpatory admis­sions. The need of law for examining the accused with reference to incriminating circumstances appearing against him in prosecution evidence is not for observance of a ritual in a trial, nor is it a mere formality. It has a salutary purpose. It enables the Court to be apprised of what the indicted person has to say about the circum­stances pitted against him by the prosecution.