Extra-judicial confessions are weak evidence and require corroboration; reliance on such confessions without substantive proof renders convictions unsafe.

ORDER :

1. This Criminal Appeal has been filed by the sole accused, challenging the conviction and sentence imposed upon him vide judgment dated 06.02.2020 in S.C.No.3/2016 on the file of the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Namakkal.

2......

(i) It is the case of the prosecution that PW1 is the wife of the deceased; that PW4 is the daughter of the deceased and PW1; that appellant/accused is the husband of PW4; that appellant/accused frequently used to quarrel with his wife for not bearing a male child and also for not bringing wedding gifts equivalent to that was given to the second daughter (the sister of PW4) of PW1; that on 24.10.2010 at about 8.45pm, the appellant/accused quarrelled with his wife and had beaten her; that PW4 called the deceased over phone and told that she was beaten and ill-treated by her husband/appellant; that her father (the deceased) rushed to the house of the appellant and picked up a quarrel; that the appellant took a stick and beaten the deceased and that after the deceased fell down, the accused had flung a stone on the deceased, resulting in the death of the deceased.

(ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that PW1 followed her husband and saw the occurrence viz., the act of the appellant beating the deceased and throwing a stone on his head after he fell down; that PW1 thereafter took the deceased to a private hospital and since no doctor was available in the said hospital, she took him to the Namakkal Government Hospital, where the deceased was declared dead; that thereafter PW1 lodged a complaint before the respondent police on 25.10.2010 at 08.00 hours. The said complaint was marked as Ex.P1.

(iii) On the basis of the said complaint, an FIR was registered by the Sub Inspector of Police attached to the respondent for the offence under Sections 302 and 506(ii) IPC in Cr.No.690 of 2010, marked as Ex.P17. The said FIR was despatched to the Magistrate on the same day.

(iv) PW11, the Inspector of Police visited the scene of occurrence and prepared observation mahazar-Ex.P18 and Rough Sketch-Ex.P19; then on the same day, PW11 seized the vehicle belonged to the deceased and his bloodstained clothes [M.O.3 to M.O.6]. Thereafter, he seized the bloodstained mud [M.O.7] and mud without bloodstain [M.O.8] under seizure mahazar [Ex.P20]. Thereafter, he conducted inquest over the dead body of the deceased between 12.30 and 3.00 pm. The inquest report was marked as Ex.P21. PW11 sent the body of the deceased for postmortem examination. PW8-Doctor, conducted postmortem and found the following external injuries and issued post-mortem certificate, [Ex.P16].

“1. A lacerated wound in occipital area of front head 3 x 4 cm.

2. A lacerated wound in right side of front side head.

3. A lacerated would in right eye brow bone.

4. Right side eye contusions.”

The Doctor had opined that the deceased would appear to have died of severe head injuries about 18-24 hours prior to post-mortem. Thereafter, PW11 examined other witnesses on 25.10.2010.

(v) PW7-Village Administrative Officer went to the police station on 25.10.2010 at about 3.30 pm and produced the appellant/accused and a special report stating that the accused voluntarily appeared before him at 12.30 pm and gave extra-judicial confession. The extra-judicial confession was marked as Ex.P9 and the Special Report was marked Ex.P10. PW11 arrested the and the appellant is said to have given a confession and on the basis of the confession, the stick/wooden log used by the appellant for committing the offence was recovered. The admissible portion of the confession was marked as Ex.P14.

(vi) After examination of all the witnesses, since PW11 was transferred, PW12 took up the investigation and filed a final report before the learned Judicial Magistrate No.2, Namakkal, for the offences under Sections 302 and 506 (ii) IPC against the appellant/accused.

(vii) On appearance of t