Back
2013 Supreme(UK) 434
UTTARAKHAND HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Mr. Chief Justice Barin Ghosh and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Servesh Kumar Gupta
Criminal Jail Appeal No. 39/2010
NARAYAN SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
Decided on : 07.10.2013
For the Appellant : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sharma, Amicus Curiae
For the Respondent:Mr. A.S. Gill, Government Advocate
Headnote:(A) Extra Judicial Confession — A weak piece of evidence and retraction from the extra judicial confession is also a usual phenomenon in criminal cases — Despite inherent weakness of extra judicial confession as an item of evidence — It cannot be ignored when shown that such confession was made before a person who had no reason to state falsely and it was made in the circumstances which tend to support the statement — Accused had confessed his guilt that he had killed his daughter (deceased) — There was no enmity between accused, PW4 and PW5 — Thus, the extra judicial confession in the present case is worth believing as it was voluntarily and was corroborated by the circumstantial evidence including medical evidence.
(Paras 16, 17)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence — Established that the accused and deceased were father and daughter and only these two people were living in the house — Body of deceased was found in the house of the accused — Accused informed the villagers about the murder of his daughter — But did not offer any explanation u/s 106, Evidence Act, as to how his daughter’s dead body reached his bathroom and got covered by woods — Alleged weapons recovered from the courtyard of his house at his instance — Forensic analysis proved that ‘Lathi’ and ‘Basula’ were bloodstained — Also, proved from the medical evidence that the injuries found on the person of deceased could be caused by such weapons were recovered from the house of the accused — Significantly accused admitted in his statement u/s 313 that he had no enmity with PW2, PW3, PW4 and PW5 — Held all the links of the chain of circumstantial evidence were complete, conclusive and lead to an irresistible conclusion that it was the accused/appellant who had done this act — No interference — Appeal dismissed.
(Paras 15, 18, 19)
¼v½ U;kf;dsÙkj laLohÑfr ,d detksj lk{; gS vkSj U;kf;dsÙkj laLohÑfr ls eqdjuk vkijkf/kd oknksa esa ,d lkekU; ?kVuk gS & gk¡ykfd lk{; ds :i esa U;kf;dsÙkj laLohÑfr esa vUrfuZfgr detksjh gS] bls misf{kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk tc izdV gks fd dfFkr laLohÑfr ,sls O;fDr ds le{k djh xbZ Fkh ftlds ikl Hkzetud dFku nsus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha Fkk & vkSj ;g mu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa dkfjr Fkk] ftlls dFku dks leFkZu fey lds & vfHk;qDr us viuk vijk/k Lohdkj fd;k Fkk fd mlds }kjk viuh iq=h ¼e`rdk½ dh gR;k dkfjr Fkh & vfHk;qDr] PW4 o PW5 ds e/; dksbZ ‘k=qrk ugha Fkh & bl izdkj dfFkr okn esa U;kf;dsÙkj laLohÑfr fo’oluh; pw¡fd ;g LosPNkiwoZd Fkh vkSj fpfdRlk lk{; o ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{;ksa ls Hkh iq”V FkhA ¼izLrj 16] 17½
¼c½ ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; & LFkkfir fd vfHk;qDr vkSj e`rdk firk&iq=h Fks vkSj ?kj esa flQZ nks yksx gh jgrs Fks & e`rdk dk e`r ‘kjhj vfHk;qDr ds ?kj esa ik;k x;k Fkk & vfHk;qDr u/s 106, lk{; vf/kfu;e vfHk;qDr }kjk dksbZ fooj.k ugha fn;k x;k Fkk fd e`rdk dk e`r ‘kjhj mlds Luku?kj esa dSls igq¡pk vkSj ydfM+;ksa ls dSls <dk x;k & vkaxu ls cjken vkjksfir gfFk;kj nks”kh ds vuqjks/k ij izkIr fd;k x;k Fkk & Qksjsafld tk¡p ls fl) fd ykBh vkSj clwyk jDrjaftr Fkk & fpfdRlk lk{; }kjk Hkh fl) fd e`rdk ij dkfjr pksVsa dfFkr gfFk;kjksa }kjk gh dkfjr Fkha tks vfHk;qDr ds ?kj ls cjken gq, Fks & egRoiw.kZ fd u/s 313 vfHk;qDr }kjk dfFkr fd PW2, PW3, PW4 o PW5 ls mldk dksbZ }s”k ugha Fkk & /kkfjr fd ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{;ksa dh lHkh dfM+;k¡ iw.kZ o fu’pk;d Fkha ftlls fu.khZr fd vihykFkhZ@vfHk;qDr }kjk gh gR;k dkfjr Fkh & gLr{ksi ugha & vihy fujLrA ¼izLrj 15] 18] 19½
Per : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.
Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 9.7.2010, passed by the Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 17/2009. By the said judgment and order, the appellant Narayan Singh has been held guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to a fine of rupees five hundred. However, the appellant has been acquitted of the charge of offence punishable under Section 201 IPC.
2. In the present case, the criminal justice system was set into motion pursuant to the First Information Report (Ex. Ka-1) lodged by Chandan Arya on 9.2.2009. It was stated in the FIR that the dead body of Km. Janki, daughter of Narayan Singh (accused), was lying in the bathroom. Accordingly, Crime No. 1/2009 was registered against unknown person for the offence of Section 302 IPC. Nayab Tehsildar Pan Singh Karki took charge of the investigation. He immediately went at the spot. Dead body of Km. Janki was found lying in the bathroom of the house of accused appellant. It was covered with the firewood. Inquest report (Ex. Ka-5) was prepared on the same day (9.2.2009) by the Investigation Officer (PW7). The Panches collectively opined that the deceased died as a result of excessive injuries suffered in her head. Autopsy was recommended by the Panches.
3. Post-mortem examination was conducted by PW6 Dr. DS Neai on 10.2.2009 at 10.30 AM in Civil Hospital, Ranikhet. He, accordingly, prepared the report Ex. Ka-3. He found following ante mortem injuries on the person of the deceased:
(1) Chopped wound on forehead, size 9.0 cm x 1.5 cm, frontal bone of skull is fractured in multiple fragments, evidence of bleeding present from wound.
(2) Chopped wound of left side face, just below left ear lobule to angle of mouth left side, 8.5 cm x 1.5 cm, muscle deep, evidence of bleeding present from wound.
(3) Chopped wound of neck posterior aspect left side, size 6.0 cm x 1.5 cm, muscle deep, evidence of bleeding present from wound.
(4) Chopped wound on left side parietal region of scalp, size 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm, scalp deep.
(5) Chopped wound on occipital region scalp, size 3.0 cm x 1.0 cm.
(6) Chopped wound left leg anterior aspect, size 5.0 cm x 1.0 cm, about 5.0 cm above from ankle joint.
(7) Laceration on index finger of right hand.
(8) Contusion on anterior wall of abdomen.
As per the post-mortem report, age of the deceased was 18 years. Rigor mortis was present in both lower limbs. Blood clots were present on head. The deceased died about three days prior to the autopsy. The cause of death, as opined by the doctor, was ante mortem injuries mentioned in column no. 1-5 as a result of severe cranio-cerebral injuries.
4. On receiving the report, when the Investigation Officer (PW7) came at the spot on 9.2.2009. ‘Kudal’ (spade), ‘Lathi’ and ‘Basula’ (hatchet), used in commission of crime, were recovered on the same day, i.e. on 9.2.2009, from inside the house of accused. Recovery memo thereof are Ex. Ka-18, Ka-19 and Ka-20 respectively. Bloodstained and plain soil were collected from the spot. Blood smeared clothes of the deceased were also taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. Ka-11. All these articles were sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Dehradun. On completion of the investigation, chargesheet (Ex.Ka-22) was submitted against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302/201 IPC.
5. Prosecution in all examined seven witnesses. PW1 is the informant Chandan Arya; PW2 Fakir Ram, PW3 Kundan Singh and PW4 Bhawan Singh are the witnesses of inquest; PW5 Karan @ Kalam Singh is one of the persons before whom the accused had made the extra judicial confession; PW6 is Dr. DS Neai, who conducted the autopsy, and PW7 is Nayab Tehsildar Pan Singh Karki, who has investigated the matter and submitted the chargesheet Ex. Ka-22.
6. Thereafter statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein he
