Point of law: It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extrajudicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extrajudicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extrajudicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration

JUDGMENT :

A.J. DESAI, J.

1. By way of present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) the appellant/convict - Ganpatji Sartanji Thakore has requested to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 08.03.2013 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Deesa, District Banaskantha in Sessions Case No. 8 of 2010, by which the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 20,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further 6 months’ RI and also under Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act and sentenced to undergo one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment.

2. The short facts arising from the record of the case are as follows.

2.1 That, one K.M. Chaudhary, Police Sub Inspector, Sihori Police Station, who was also in charge of Thara Police Station, lodged an FIR being I-CR No. 92/2009 with Sihori Police Station on 10.09.2009 at 00.15 hours against unknown persons for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC as well as Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. It was alleged by said PSI Mr. Chaudhary that one Head Constable of Thara Police Station viz. Md. Sharif Ibrahim informed him on telephone that in the sim of village Katadia a dead-body is lying in the field of one Gagaji. The said phone call was received by him on 09.09.2009 and a Janva Jog Entry No. 42/2009 was posted by the PSO at around 16.00 hours. Two police personnel, one ASI and another unarmed Head Constable went to the place where the dead-body was lying. It was found from the dead-body that the deceased had sustained injuries on face as well as on his hands and legs. A mobile of NOKIA company which was in working condition was also found from the pocket of the deceased. At that time, one Jyotsnaben wife of Meruji Valaji Thakore came at the place where the dead-body was lying and she identified the dead-body as that of her husband viz. Meruji Valaji Thakore. Accordingly, inquest panchnama was prepared on the spot i.e. on 09.09.2009, certain injuries were recorded in the inquest panchnama and videography was also done.

2.2 Since the dead-body was lying in bushes and the complainant-police officer thought that the dead-body may be destroyed by animals, the same was taken to the hospital in a jeep alongwith Jyotsanaben wife of the deceased as well as her father.

2.3 At that time the family members including the wife of the deceased was asked about their intention to lodge the FIR, however they did not come forward and ultimately the FIR came to be lodged at the time mentioned hereinabove.

2.4 Further investigation was handed over to another officer who as per his say gathered information and found the appellant-accused having committed the murder since the appellant had relationship with the wife of the deceased and wanted to elope with her.

2.5 The appellant herein came to be arrested on 12.09.2009. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences and charge-sheet came to be submitted before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class and as the case was sessions triable, the learned JMFC in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions.

2.6 The charge (Exh.5) came to be framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 25.03.2010. The appellant accused denied the charges and therefore, trial proceeded.

2.7 During the pendency of the trial and subsequent to recording of deposition of Jyotasnaben, the charge was modified on 21.04.2011 and offence under Section 376 of the IPC was added against the appellant herein.

2.8 The prosecution examined in all 19 witnesses and produced several documents. The appellant-accused did not examine any witness.

2.9 The learned Sessions Judge after examin