Back
2003 Supreme(Cal) 506
High Court Of Calcutta
Amit Talukdar, P. N. Sinha
KIRTICHAND, BIDESHI GOPE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF WEST BENGAL - Respondent
C. R. A. 204 Of 1997
Decided On : 09/24/2003
L.M.DUTT, RASH BEHARI MAHATO, SUSHIL KUMAR MAHATO
Extra-judicial confessions can be considered as evidence in a criminal trial if they are found to be voluntary and reliable, and if they are corroborated by other evidence.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - Murder - Section 302 of IPC - Extra-judicial confession - Circumstantial evidence - Reliability of witnesses - Appreciation of evidence - Chain of circumstances - Motive - Conviction and sentence upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Kirtichand @ Bideshi Gope, was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife, Ashari Gope, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleged that on the night of October 21, 1994, the appellant strangled his wife to death with a muffler after she refused to have sexual intercourse with him due to her ill health. The appellant confessed to the crime before his father-in-law and other villagers, who reported the incident to the police. The police recovered the muffler used in the murder and conducted an investigation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the prosecution had established a chain of circumstances that conclusively pointed to the appellant's guilt. The Court relied on the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant, the recovery of the murder weapon, and the testimony of eyewitnesses who saw the appellant fleeing from the scene of the crime. The Court also considered the appellant's contradictory statements during his examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) and the fact that he had no alibi for the time of the murder.
Issues: 1. Whether the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was voluntary and reliable. 2. Whether the circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. Whether the trial court erred in convicting the appellant based on the evidence presented.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant was voluntary and reliable as it was made before the arrival of the police and was corroborated by other evidence. 2. The Court found that the circumstantial evidence established by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court considered the appellant's confession, the recovery of the murder weapon, the testimony of eyewitnesses, and the appellant's contradictory statements during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. 3. The Court held that the trial court did not err in convicting the appellant based on the evidence presented.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the trial court.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order of conviction by which the appellant was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to suffer rigrous imprisonment for two years for the offence under section 302 of I. P. C. by the learned Sessions judge, Purulia in Sessions Trial No. 1 of 1997 (Sessions Case No. 117 of 1996)and being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of conviction and sentence the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case, in short as it appears from materials on record is that, Ashari Gope (the deceased) aged about 14 years was married with the appellant Kirtichand @ Bideshi Gope in Jaistha 1401 B. S. Ashari Gope came to her father Ashutosh Gope's (P. W. 1) house in Sravan and she returned to her in-laws house in Ashwin. On 22. 10. 94 at morning P. W. 1 received news of death of his daughter Ashari from Umesh Gope (P. W. 2) of Talmu village. Receiving the news P. W. 1 came to village Talmu accompanied by his son manulal Gope (P. W. 4), co-villager Banu Gope and others. P. W. 1 found his daughter Ashari lying dead on khatia inside her room and he noticed black marks i. e. ligature marks on her neck and froth from her nose. His son-in-law i. e. appellant Kirtichand @ Bideshi Gope was in the house at that time and on interrogation by P. W. 1, the appellant confessed his guilt and stated that, on 21. 10. 94 night at about 10,00 P. M. when he wanted to have sexual intercourse with his wife Ashari, she declined to have it for her ill health. There was altercation between them and the appellant fastened the neck of his wife Ashari with a muffler and pulled it strongly which resulted into death of Ashari Gope. Thereafter, the appellant tried to escape but he was detained with the help of men of Talmu village. P. W. 1 Ashutosh Gope presented the F. I. R. (Ext. 1) on 22. 10. 94 at 11. 25 hours to P. W. 12 Prabodh Patra at Talmu village and P. W. 12 forwarded the same to Joypur P. S. and the basis of it Joypur P. S. Case No. 63 dated 22. 10. 94 was started against the appellant under section 302 of i. P. C. for murdering his wife. After completing investigation chargesheet was submitted against the appellant and the trial which followed thereafter resulted into conviction of the appellant and hence this appeal.
( 3 ) MR. Rashbehari Mahato being assisted by Sushil Mahato who were engaged by us as State defence for the appellant since this is a jail appeal, contended that, besides P. W. 1 no other witness stated about ligature mark on the neck of deceased. P. W. 2 Umesh Gope who accompanied P. W. 1 did not state about the alleged extra-judicial confession made by this appellant before p. W. 1 and others. Evidence of P. W. 2 reveals that the appellant came to his house at about 12. 00 midnight and told him that his wife Ashari was lying dead inside the room. What the Investigating Officer (hereinafter called the i. O.) stated in his evidence regarding cause of death was not stated by any other witness and no other witness stated that there was altercation between this appellant and deceased regarding refusal of sexual intercourse.
( 4 ) HE further contended that examination under section 313 of the Code of criminal Procedure (hereinafter called Cr. P. C.) was not proper as question nos. 9, 10, 14, 15 were not stated by the witnesses in such manner in their evidence. There is contradiction between F. I. R. and evidence. P. W. 5 is not a neighbour and his evidence is not reliable. Not a single neighbour was examined to make the prosecution case reliable. The muffler in question was not produced in Court and adverse presumption should be drawn against the prosecution. There is also contradiction in evidence of different witnesses which makes it clear that the witnesses are not trustworthy.
( 5 ) IT was further argued by Mr. Mahato that the story of extra-judicial confession is weak type of evidence and
