The main legal point established in the judgment is the admissibility and reliability of extra-judicial confession as evidence in convicting the accused of murder, and the considerations for awarding capital punishment in rarest of rare cases.

ORDER S. C. SHARMA, J. – The Criminal Appeal No. 4368/2019 has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by judgment of conviction dated 29-11-2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 179/2018 convicting the appellant-Kanhaiyalal under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (on three counts) along with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment and the Criminal Reference No. 17/2018 has been made by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandsaur again arising out of the same judgment dated 29-11-2018 by which for offence under section 302, a death penalty (to be hanged till death) has been awarded.

2. The prosecution case in short is that the marriage of Kanhaiyalal took place about 15-17 years prior to the date of incident and his wife gave birth to two daughters. He was residing with his wife namely Guddi and two daughters namely Sapna and Vishnu at Village Daudkhedi. Kanhaiyalal s/o Laxminarayan Meena was a Village Kotwar.

3. Gopal Meena (PW-1), who is cousin brother of the appellant Kanhaiyalal, on 16-6-2018 at about 07-07:30 A.M. was informed by the appellant Kanhaiyalal that he has killed his wife Guddi and daughters Sapna and Vishnu by an Axe (Kulhadi). The appellant, thereafter, told Gopal Meena that the factum of murder committed by him be informed to his in-laws, who were residing in Village Moriya. Thereafter, Gopal Meena came down to the house of Kanhaiyalal. Gopal Meena also called the brother of the appellant Kailash Meena. The appellant along with Gopal Meena and Kailash Meena went inside the house and inside the house, three dead bodies were lying on the floor in a pool of blood.

4. The bodies were lying on floor with their heads chopped off. Kailash Meena, who is the brother of the appellant, thereafter, informed telephonically his third brother Shambhulal and on mobile the Police Station Y. D. Nagar, Mandsaur was also informed. The police on information reached at spot and on the basis of information given by Gopal Meena, a Dehati Nalisi was registered at Crime No. 0/2018 for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Thereafter, based upon the Dehati Nalisi a crime was registered and First Information Report (Ex.-P/30) was lodged.

5. Inspector Vinodsingh Kushwaha (PW-9) in order to prepare Naksha Panchnama of dead bodies issued notice (Ex.-P/2) to Panchas (witnesses) and a Panchnama was prepared in presence of witnesses namely Radheshyam, Dinesh, Shambulal, Gopal and Chandabai. A spot map was prepared in presence of witness Gopal Meena (PW-1) i.e. Ex.-P/6 and an axe was recovered in presence of witnesses Gopal Meena (PW-1) and Radheshyam (PW-3), Blood Soaked Soil and Normal Soil (Ex.-P/7) were also seized from the spot and the appellant was arrested. His arrest memo is on record as Ex.-P/8.

6. The statement of accused Kanhaiyalal was taken down by the police in presence of the Radheshyam and Dinesh and the blood soaked clothes of the accused were also recovered from the bathroom of the house (Seizure Memo Ex.-P/10). A spot map was prepared and all three dead bodies were sent for postmortem to the District Hospital, Mandsaur (Ex.-P/19, 21 and 23).

7. Dr. Viabhav Jain (PW-8) conducted the postmortem and submitted postmortem report (Ex.-P/20, P/22 and P/24). Articles seized were forwarded for forensic examination to Forensic Laboratory, Jhumarghat (Rau). Report received from the Forensic Science Laboratory is Ex.-P/25 and the report establishes presence of human blood.

8. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and thereafter, the matter was committed for trial to the Court of Sessions Judge, Mandsaur. The appellant has denied his involvement in the matter.

9. The trial Court has discussed the evidence adduced during the trial and after framing two questions for determination has held the appellant guilty of murder. The questions for determination on the basis of which the entire judgment has been delivered are as under : –

(