SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(All) 1549

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
NAHEED ARA MOONIS, SHASHI KANT, JJ.
Ram Babu - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1607 of 1983
Decided On : 18-01-2019

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : A.K.Sachan, Apul Misra, Ashwani Kumar Sachan, Saurabh Sachan

An extrajudicial confession is admissible in evidence if it is made voluntarily and is corroborated by other evidence.

Headnote:

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's extrajudicial confession, the recovery of the murder weapon, and the testimony of eyewitnesses. The appellant appealed, arguing that the extrajudicial confession was inadmissible because it was made under duress, that the recovery of the murder weapon was not properly corroborated, and that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was unreliable. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the extrajudicial confession was admissible because it was made voluntarily, that the recovery of the murder weapon was properly corroborated, and that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was reliable.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's extrajudicial confession, the recovery of the murder weapon, and the testimony of eyewitnesses.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the extrajudicial confession was admissible because it was made voluntarily, that the recovery of the murder weapon was properly corroborated, and that the testimony of the eyewitnesses was reliable.

Issues: 1. Whether the extrajudicial confession was admissible. 2. Whether the recovery of the murder weapon was properly corroborated. 3. Whether the testimony of the eyewitnesses was reliable.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The extrajudicial confession was admissible because it was made voluntarily. The appellant was not in custody at the time he made the confession, and there was no evidence that he was threatened or coerced into making it. 2. The recovery of the murder weapon was properly corroborated by the testimony of the eyewitnesses. The eyewitnesses saw the appellant with the murder weapon shortly before the murder, and they saw him fleeing the scene of the crime shortly after the murder. 3. The testimony of the eyewitnesses was reliable. The eyewitnesses were consistent in their testimony, and there was no evidence that they had any motive to lie.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the appeal, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.

JUDGMENT :

NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal has been preferred on behalf of the accused-appellant against the impugned judgment and order dated 30.5.1983 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge (NMA) Kanpur whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced to serve out life imprisonment in Sessions Trial No. 308 of 1982 (State vs. Ram Babu) under Sections 302 IPC, Police Station Sheorajpur District Kanpur Dehat.

2. The emanation of facts giving rise to the prosecution in short conspectus is that a first information report was lodged on 10.9.1982 at about 6.30 a.m. with respect to the incident dated 10.9.1982 occurred at about 3.00 to 4.00 a.m. by the appellant complainant Ram Babu about the murder of his wife Smt. Rajkumari who divulged that the marriage of accused appellant was solemnized with Rajkumari about three years prior to the incident. The accused appellant was in service at Kanpur. Ram Charan, the brother of Bhajan Lal the Sarhu of the accused appellant, used to reside at Kanpur in his proximity. Ram Charan, the brother of Bhajan Lal was infatuated in love with Raj Kumari. The wife of the accused appellant had gone at the house of Ram Charan situate in village Sahjora prior to two days of Raksha Bandhan festival. The accused appellant visited the house of Ram Charan situate at village Sahjora to bring his wife Raj Kumari after two days of Raksha Bandhan festival but on the intervention of some kith and kin, she was not allowed to come from there. The accused appellant came back to Kanpur alone. On 23.8.1982, it came in the notice of the accused appellant that Ram Charan had moved an application for performing court marriage with his wife Raj Kumari. The accused appellant contacted with Ram Charan who unfolded that he would keep Raj Kumari in his affiancing on account of which tug of war ensued between the accused appellant and Ram Charan. The Sarhu of the accused appellant namely Bhajan Lal intervened and got the matter assuaged and his wife Raj Kumari came back at the residence of the accused appellant. On account of trepid and panic of Ram Charan, the accused appellant kept his wife at village Bhatpura. Raj Kumari, the wife of the accused appellant was a lady of shoddy and shabby character and had proclivity to associate with Ram Charan which was inviting disrepute and ill fame for him. In the previous evening i.e. 9.9.1982 the accused appellant was going to Kanpur, Ram Charan had contracted some malefactors for his liquidation. They waylaid him in the way. The accused appellant had anyhow been able to save his life fleeing from the said place. The accused appellant arrived at the residence located in the village taking knife from the room at Kanpur in the mid night and got the door unbolted and relaxed in the company of his wife and went on perceiving with respect to the character of his wife. When the accused appellant ensued conversation with his wife with regard to foul act of Ram Charan, his wife Raj Kumari could not digest the word of the accused appellant and confronted by hurling heart-rending and indecent words undermining his respect and dignity. The despicable words of Raj Kumari caused exasperation and vexation to the accused appellant and on the spur of derangement, he attacked upon her throat with knife and dashed her down and disintegrated neck mounting upon her chest as a consequence of which she succumbed to injuries. The accused appellant had serious a doubt about the perverted and squalid character of his wife Rajkumari. The incident was alleged to have occurred at about 3 or 4 O' clock. The accused appellant submitted the written information vide Ext.Ka.2 with regard to incident before the Station officer concerned.

3. Further it transpired that the accused appellant went to Brij Kishore Singh (P.W.2) ex.pradhan of Sheorajpur which was adjoining village of Bhatpura and divulged the entire facts to him. The accused appellant requested him to apply his virtues

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top