Extrajudicial confessions can substantiate convictions when corroborated by other credible evidence, despite being considered weak testimony.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.9.2009 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Janjgir in S.T.No.111/2009 convicting the accused / appellant under S.302 of IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulation.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 18.2.2009 in between 9-10 am after committing murder of Dahruram @ Chander Sao by causing several injuries on his body with axe, the accused / appellant made extrajudicial confession before PW - 3 Mankunwar, PW - 4 Gopal Das, PW - 6 Gorelal and PW - 7 Sahodra Bai that it is he who committed murder of the deceased. Merg intimation (Ex.P / 12) was registered on 18.2.2009 itself at the instance of PW - 5 Tajuram. Thereafter, FIR (Ex.P / 13) was registered against the accused / appellant at the instance of PW - 5 under S.302 of IPC. Inquest over the body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P / 17. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted on 19.2.2009 by PW - 1 Dr. K. K. Dahire vide Ex.P / 1 wherein he noticed as many as five incised wounds, including fracture of cervical vertebra, and opined that the cause of death is antemortem severe bleeding and shock as a result of repeated attack over scalp and neck by any sharp object and that the death was homicidal in nature. After investigation charge sheet was filed against the appellant and accordingly, charge under S.302 of IPC were framed.

3. So as to hold the accused / appellant guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the accused was also recorded under S.313 of Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication.

4. The trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in para - 1 of this judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits as under:
(i) that the accused / appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of extrajudicial confession allegedly made before some of the prosecution witnesses but the said evidence is admittedly a weak type of evidence. There was no occasion for the accused / appellant to make such extrajudicial confession.
(ii) though on the disclosure statement of the accused / appellant (Ex.P / 8), bloodstained full pant and full shirt worn by the appellant at the time of commission of offence and one bloodstained axe were seized vide Ex.P / 9 and P / 10 respectively, but the seizure witness PW - 4 Gopal Das has not supported the prosecution case and other seizure witness PW - 6 Gorelal does not appear to be reliable. Even otherwise, in absence of FSL report, seizure of the aforesaid articles is of no consequence.

6. On the other hand, supporting the impugned judgment it has been argued by the State counsel as under:
(i) that immediately after commission of murder of the deceased, the accused / appellant made extrajudicial confession before PWs - 3, 4, 6 & 7, statements of these witnesses are trustworthy and therefore, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve their evidence.
(ii) that on the disclosure statement of the appellant (Ex.P / 8), seizure (Ex.P / 9 & P / 10) of bloodstained wearing apparels of the appellant and axe was made. PW - 6, a witness to memorandum and seizure, has fully supported the prosecution case whereas PW - 4 has admitted his signature on all the documents. Even as per query report Ex.P / 2, it has been opined by the