Lalsahay vs State of M. P. - 1997 Supreme(MP) 449

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

Advocates:
Sanjay Agarwal for appellant; A.K. Khaskalam, Dy. Advocate General for State.

Headnote:(1) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 24 -- extra-judicial confession voluntarily made to two witnesses -- witnesses having no motive against accused -- rightly relied on.
        (2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 25 -- extra-judicial confession made in presence of Kotwar of village -- not hit as the Kotwar is not police officer.
        (3) Penal Code, 1860 -- S. 302 -- husband and wife both in the room -- wife murdered -- offence against husband also proved by extra-judicial confession -- conviction proper.
       ¼1½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 24 & U;kf;dsrj laLohd`fr LosPNk ls nks lkf{k;ksa dks dh xbZ & lk{khx.k dks vfHk;qDr ds fo:) dksbZ gsrq ugha & Bhd&gh voyafcrA

        ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872 & /kkjk 25 & U;kf;dsrj laLohd`fr xzke ds dksVokj dh mifLFkfr esa dh xbZ & vkgr ugha gksrh D;ksafd dksVokj iqfyl vf/kdkjh ugha gSA

        ¼3½ naM lafgrk] 1860 & /kkjk 302 & ifr rFkk iRuh] nksuksa ml dejs esa & iRuh dh gR;k & ifr ds fo:) vijk/k U;kf;dsrj laLohd`fr }kjk Hkh lkfcr & nks"kflf) mfprA
        The trial Court had found the following incriminating circumstances proved against the appellant :-
        (i) that, the appellant and his wife Sangi Bai were together in the house at the time of her murder;
        (ii) that, appellant Lalsahay had made extra-judicial confession to Sukril Bai (PW 9) and Sumel Singh (PW 11 ), admitting to have committed murder of his wife Sangi Bai; and,
        (iii) that, blood stains were found on the appellants dhoti, which was seized at the time of his arrest.
        Held : First, we shall examine the evidence about the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant to Sukrit Bai (PW 9). She has categorically staled that at about 10-11 a.m. on the date of the incident, appellant Lalsahay had come to her house in search of her son Panchram. On being informed that Panchram was not in the house, the appellant stated that he had killed his wife. We do not find any material in her cross-examination which may make her evidence unreliable. Neither in the cross-examination of Sukrit Bai (PW 9) nor during the course of hearing, any material was suggested which may furnish a motive for this witness to depose falsely against the appellant. In our opinion, Sukrit Bai (PW 9) is a truthful witness and her evidence is worthy of reliance. Therefore, we hold that the extra-judicial confession made by appellant Lalsahay to Sukrit Bai (PW 9) stands fully proved.
        The appellant is said to have made another extra-judicial confession to Sumel Singh (PW 11), who was Patel of the village. From his evidence, it emerges out that in the noon of the date of the incident, Dhansai, the village Kotwar, had brought appellant Lalsahay to his house, and on his querry appellant Lalsahay made a confessional statement, admitting to have killed his wife. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, the learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the extra-judicial confession made to Sumel Singh (PW 11), who was the Patel of the village, in the presence of Dhansai, the village Kotwar, is hit by section 25, of the evidence Act, and is, therefore, inadmissible in evidence. We do not deem it necessary to dilate any more on this issue, as the same already stands conclusively decided by a Full Ben.ch of this Court, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Premlal, reported in 1987 JLJ 102, wherein it has been held that a village Kotwar is not a police officer, and, therefore, extra-judicial confession made to a Kotwar is not inadmissible under section 25 of the Evidence Act. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. On a close scrutiny of the statement of Sumel Singh (PW 11), we are satisfied that the extra-judicial confession made by appellant Lalsahay was a voluntary one and does not suffer from any infirmity, whatsoever.
        Though the stand taken by the appellant, in his defence, was that he was not in his house at the time of commission of murder of Sangi Bai, but from the evidence on record it is established that appellant Lalsahay alone was in the house alongwith his wife Sangi Bai. We have found it proved that Sangi Bai died a homicidal death inside the appellants house. The defence of the appellant that he was not in the house is not acceptable. We hold the above incriminating circumstance proved against appellant Lalsahay.
        The presence of blood on the dhoti of appellant, in the facts of the present case, in our opinion, is not of such significance, as no report from the Serologist has been placed on record for establishing that the blood stains found on the dhoti were of human origin.
        On the above re-appreciation of the evidence, we find that appellant Lalsahay alone was inside his house with his wife Sangi Bai, who had died a homicidal death. The explanation given by appellant Lalsahay, in view of the evidence on record, stands falsified. It is proved that appellant Lalsahay has made an extra-judicial confession to Sukrit Bai (PW 9), admitting the commission of murder of his wife Sangi Bai. Another extra-judicial confession made by him, to Sumel Singh (PW 11), admitting his guilt also stands fully proved. The above evidence, in our opinion, is sufficient for holding appellant Lalsahay guilty of commission of murder of his wife, Sangi Bai. The trial Court, therefore, in our opinion, rightly held appellant Lalsahay guilty under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, for the commission of murder of his wife Sangi Bai. We do not find any scope for interference in this appeal. 1987 JLJ 102 (FB) relied on. Appeal dismissed.