JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. Since both of these appeals have arisen out of common judgment dated 28/08/2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Trial No. 89/2013, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 844/2014 has been preferred by the accused Geeta Yadav under Section 374(2) of CrPC questioning the impugned judgment whereby she has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/- in default of payment of fine, R.I. for 1 month, whereas Criminal Appeal No. 335/2015 has been preferred by the husband of the deceased, Kartik Ram Yadav (P.W.-1) under Section 372 of CrPC seeking compensation under the provisions of Sections 357 and 357(A) of CrPC.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27/07/2013 at about 2:30 AM at village Kumarra within the ambit of Police Station Chhuriya, accused Geeta Yadav caused the death of her mother-in-law Smt. Shail Bai by pouring kerosene oil over her and setting her ablaze while she was sleeping and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence.

4. Further case of the prosecution is that deceased Smt. Shail Bai had sustained grievous burn injuries and she was taken to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon for treatment but looking to her serious condition, she was referred to Sector 9 Hospital, Bhilai wherein she succumbed to her injuries and died on the same day. The information regarding her death was given to the Police Station wherein merg intimation was registered vide Ex. P/16. Inquest was conducted vide Ex. P/1 and her dead body was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. V.S. Baghel (P.W.-11) and as per the postmortem report (Ex. P/10), cause of death is said to be shock due to extensive burn and inflammation injuries. Upon merg inquiry, husband of the accused Vikky Yadav (P.W.-4) informed the police that accused Geeta Yadav has made extra-judicial confession before the village Kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3), Vikky Yadav (P.W.-4) and Raju Yadav (P.W.-6) that she poured kerosene oil over the deceased and set her on fire. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the accused was taken into custody. Her memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex. P/3 and a bamboo stick which was burnt from one side was seized from her vide Ex. P/4. The said bamboo stick was sent for forensic examination along with the other seized articles and in the FSL report (Ex. P/21), fractions of kerosene oil was found on it. After due investigation, the accused was charge-sheeted for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was admitted to the Sessions Court for trial in accordance with law. Accused Geeta Yadav abjured the guilt and entered into defence.

5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses and brought on record 22 documents. Statement of the accused was taken under Section 313 of CrPC wherein she denied guilt, however, she examined none in her defence and brought on record only 3 documents.

6. Learned trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, holding the death of deceased Smt. Shail Bai to be homicidal in nature and further holding the accused Geeta Yadav to be the author of crime in question, proceeded to convict her for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced her as aforesaid.

7. Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant/accused in Criminal Appeal No. 844/2014, would make a two-fold submission :-

i) the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by the accused to the village kotwar Manohar Mahar (P.W.-3) would not be admissible in evidence as village kotwar is a police officer in terms of Section 25 of the Evidence Act.

ii) the said extra-judicial confession would also not be admissible in evidence as it was not made voluntarily by the accused in view of the statement of Raju Yadav (P.W.- 6) who has clearly state