The court held that acts committed under grave and sudden provocation may reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide, emphasizing the absence of malicious intent.

JUDGMENT :

( PER : URMILA JOSHI PHALKE , J.)

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order of sentence passed by the II Adhoc Additional Sessions Judge, Washim in Sessions Trial No. 98/2004 dated 21.12.2005 convicting the present Appellant/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the INDIAN PENAL CODE (for short “IPC”) and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for life.

2. Brief facts of the prosecution case emerges from the Police papers and recorded evidence are as under:

2(i). The First Information Report (for short “FIR”) came to be registered on the basis of the report lodged by the accused on the contention that she has committed murder of deceased Madhao Gote at her house near Railway Station Slum area as deceased on 22.06.2004 was insisting her to withdraw the criminal case pending against him under Section 376 of IPC in Washim Court instituted on her report. She contended that, the deceased was harassing her and insisting her continuously to withdraw the report filed by her and on the fateful night also he came to her house and was insisting her to withdraw the complaint, therefore she gave a blow of Razor (Ustara) on his neck and by giving blow of Pestle (Khalbatta) on his head. On the basis of the said report, Police have registered the crime against the present accused.

2(ii). During investigation, the Investigating Officer has drawn the Spot panchnama, recovered the dead body from her house which was in a decomposed condition. Inquest panchnama was also drawn. Blood stained articles were also seized from her house. Clothes of the deceased and clothes of the accused are also seized. On the basis of her statement, said Razor was seized in presence of panchas. All the incriminating articles are forwarded to CA. After completion of the investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the accused.

2(iii). The learned Sessions Judge after committal of the case framed Charge vide Exh. 9. The contents of the charge are read over and explained to the accused in vernacular. She pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In support of the prosecution case, the prosecution had examined in all 5 witnesses as follows.

2(iv). Besides oral evidence prosecution placed reliance on Spot panchnama-Exh. 23, Seizure panchnama-Exh. 24, Inquest panchnama-Exh. 25, Seizure memos of the samples-Exh. 26, Memorandum statement of the accused-Exh. 27 and Recovery panchnama-Exh. 28, Report-Exh. 32 and PM Report-Exh.45.

2(v). All the incriminating evidence is put to the accused to obtain her explanation regarding the evidence appearing against her by recording her statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short “Cr.P.C.”). The defence of the accused is of a total denial and of a false implication. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the evidence held the present accused/appellant guilty and convicted her as aforestated. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the same, the present Appeal is preferred.

3. Heard Mr. Khapre, learned Senior Counsel for the accused, who submitted that, as far as the confession on the basis of which the crime is registered, is not admissible as hit by the Sections 24 and 25 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT . The conviction is entirely based upon the FIR which is lodged by the accused herself.

3(i). In view of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Aghnoo Nagesia Vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1966 SC 119, wherein the law regarding confession is discussed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and it is held that, it is not admissible against the accused.

3(ii). He further submitted that, even accepting the prosecution case as it is, the deceased was insisting her to withdraw the complaint which was lodged by her as she was subjected for forceful sexual assault by the deceased. Therefore, the act of accused would cover under Exception 1 of Section 300 of IPC. He submitted that, the evidence in the nature of extra judicial confession is also a weak type of evidence and would