The judgment underscores the significance of procedural compliance and voluntariness in recording confessions under S. 164 Cr. P. C., and the need for reliable and credible evidence in criminal cases.

VIKRAMADITYA PRASAD, J. :-, J.

( 1 ) THIS criminal appeal is against the order of conviction and sentence passed on trial by Sri Surya Kant Mishra, Sessions Judge, Hazaribagh, in S. T. No. 17/1992 against the appellant Gobardhan Rajbansi whereby and whereunder the learned trial Court held the appellant guilty of an offence under S. 307 I. P. C. and sentenced him to undergo R. I. for life.

( 2 ) THE appellant admittedly was the husband of the deceased Lodhia Devi. One Md. Aziz, PW1, was unloading a truck of the Dhillan Transport at about 10. 30 to 11. 00 AM on 29-7-1991 when he saw that the accused holding the hand of his wife Lodhiya Devi came out from the shop of Gopal Seth and came in front of his shop and he started assaulting her by spade which he was possessing in his hand, firstly on waist and back and thereafter, on the head of Lodhiya Devi for four times and thus, hit on her head and above her neck on back. Lodhia Devi fell down and a crowd assembled and in the meantime one jeep of Bhera Singh came there on which the said Lodhia Devi was taken to hospital in injured condition. After the crowed had assembled Gobardhan Rajbansi along with spade fled away. The said Md. Aziz made his fardbeyan, Ext. 3, on 24-7-1991 at Golpark Dhillan Transport near Sathish Cinema Hall at 2. 30 hours and alleged that in order to kill his wife the accused had assaulted her in the aforesaid manner. ( 3 ) IT transpires that at 4. 30 p. m. on 24-7-1991 from the bushes standing in the corner of tank near Ganth More in presence of two witnesses, namely, Lal Mohammad, P. W. 8, and Nazir Mohammad (not examined) the police had seized one broken spade. The edge of which was 6" and which had also some blood stains. The seizure list was made Ext. 5 and the signature of the seizure list witnesses put on the seizure list were made Ext. 2 and 2/1.

( 4 ) IT also transpires that incourse of the investigation a confessional statement of the accused under Section 164 Cr. P. C. was recorded, vide Ext. 1.

( 5 ) ORIGINALLY the case was instituted under S. 307 I. P. C. , but as later Lodhia Devi Succumbed to her injuries the offence was converted into S. 302 I. P. C. and the accused -appellant was charged for the offence under S. 302 I. P. C. , but was convicted under S. 307 I. P. C.

( 6 ) THE defence version of the case was that the appellant was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case at the behest of some persons. In the Court below, on behalf of the appellant, written argument was filed. It was seriously contended that after being allegedly assaulted, the injured was taken first to the Nai Saria Hospital and subsequent thereto, she was rushed to R. M. C. H. , Ranchi where she died after treatment, but none of the Doctors of these Hospitals was examined or even made a chargesheet witness. As one Doctor of the R. M C. H. did not turn up before the Court, the post-mortem report could not be proved. Defence claimed that because of the non-examination of the Doctor and non-proving of the injuries on the part of the prosecution, it was not proved that actually what type of injuries had been sustained by the injured /deceased, and reliance was placed on 1986 Est. Cr. C. 700 (1986 Cri. L. J. 1727) (Pat), 1993 Est. Cr. C. 228 (1993 AIR SCW 1123) (A) (SC ). It was argued that how the police came at the P. O. and what was the source of information to the police was not clear and therefore the fardbeyan, Ext. 3, could not be treated as an F. I. R. and the earliest information that was given to the police as per the evidence of P. W. 8 para 7, was deliberately conclealed. It was also not clear as to whether the accused appellant was arrested. There is contradiction among the witnesses with regard to the seizure of the spade and it was asserted that according to the seizure list, weapon was seized at 4. 30 p. m. from the Jhari at the corner of the Talab whereas according to the seizure list witness, P. W. 8, para 2, it was seizsed from the P. O. and