Back
2017 Supreme(Bom) 2348
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR
B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, V.M. DESHPANDE, JJ.
Waman s/o Sadashio Nandeshwar – Appellant
Vs.
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.220 OF 2005
Decided on : 03-05-2017
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri R.R. Gour, Adv.
For the Respondent: Shri V.A. Thakare, Adv.
An extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and should be corroborated by other admissible evidence to secure a conviction.
Headnote:
Extrajudicial Confession - Criminal Appeal - Indian Penal Code Section 302 - 1998 CRI.L.J. 4260, (1997) 8 SCC 158
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code based on an extrajudicial confession made to PW2 Kishor Nandardhane. The chemical analyzer's report showed no blood stain on the weapon recovered at the instance of the appellant.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the conviction based solely on uncorroborated extrajudicial confession was unsafe and acquitted the appellant of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The key issue was whether the conviction of the appellant based on the extrajudicial confession made to PW2 Kishor Nandardhane was valid.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized that an extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence and should be corroborated by other admissible evidence. It referenced the principles established in the cases of 1998 CRI.L.J. 4260 and (1997) 8 SCC 158 to support its decision.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, the judgment and order of conviction were quashed and set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
V.M. Deshpande, J.
1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order of conviction dated 5.1.2005, in Sessions Case No.48 of 2004, by which learned 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and directed to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/, and in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for six months, appellant/accused has filed this appeal.
2. This Court admitted the present appeal on 8.4.2005. Vide order dated 29.7.2005, this Court by suspending substantive jail sentence of the appellant, released him on bail.
3. We have heard learned counsel Shri R.R. Gour appointed for the appellant by the High Court Legal Services Sub Committee, Nagpur and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Shri V.A. Thakare for the respondent/State. With able assistance of both learned counsel, we have gone through the record and proceedings and also the impugned judgment.
4. On 13.1.2004, PW10 Police Inspector Jivan Tulshiram Kshirsagar reduced into writing oral report of PW1 complainant Murlidhar Somaji Tikle in respect of murder of his nephew Bhaskar Jagan Tikle. Oral report is at Exhibit 22 whereas printed F.I.R. is at Exhibit 23. The crime was registered vide C.R. No.3 of 2004.
On 131.1.2004 itself, PW10 Jivan Kshirsagar took appellant for inquiry. He arrested appellant on next day i.e. 14.1.2004 vide arrest panchanama Exhibit 35. In the meanwhile, dead body of Bhaskar was sent for postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by PW8 Dr. Purushottam Madhukarrao Balpande. While conducting postmortem, he noticed following injuries on the body of Bhaskar :
i) Lenier deeply laceration measuring 5 x 6 x 7 cm.,
ii) Skull fracture present 6 xx 6½ x 5 cm.
over the vertex measuring in deep direction.
iii) Celrbral hemispear tear and separated laterally, superior region measuring 4 x 3½ x 1½ cm.
Postmortem report is at Exhibit 45. The appellant was also referred to Dr. Purushottam Balpande for his medical examination. However, no injury was noticed on the person of the appellant.
5. After arrest of appellant on 14.1.2004, investigating officer seized clothes of the appellant by drawing seizure memo Exhibit 38 on 15.1.2004 at 7:00 o’clock in the evening. When the appellant was in police custody, he made a disclosure statement whereby he agreed to take out the weapon which he has concealed. The memorandum statement is at Exhibit 25 and consequent recovery panchanama of the weapon is at Exhibit 56. The investigating officer, thereafter, sent the muddemal property for chemical analysis to the chemical analyzer. The muddemal property, which was sent, includes (i) blood as well as simple earth collected from the spot of the incident, (ii) weapon i.e. pickaxe recovered at the instance of the appellant, and (iii) clothes of the deceased.
6. After completion of other usual investigation, final report was presented in the Court of law. Learned Magistrate, in whose Court final report was presented, noticed that the offence is exclusively triable by the Court of sessions and, therefore, he passed committal order. After said order, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions and it was registered as Sessions Case No.48 of 2004. Learned 4th Ad hoc Additional Sessions Judge, Chandrapur framed the charge vide Exhibit 15 against the appellant. The appellant denied the charge and claimed to be tried.
7. In order to bring home guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined in all 10 witnesses and also relied upon various documents. Learned Judge of the Court below convicted the appellant and ordered sentence as observed in the opening paragraph of the judgment.
8. Perusal of the impugned judgment shows that learned Judge of the Court below has discarded entire evidence of the prosecution to connect the appellant to the crime except extrajudicial confession made by the appellant to PW2 Kishor Bhagwan Nandardhane. It is to be noted here that chemical analyzer’s
