- (1.) THE appellant was indicted before the learned Sessions Judge Sikar for murdering his wife Gopali. Learned Judge vide Judgment July 19, 2000 convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 IPC to suffer life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/-, in default to further suffer one month imprisonment.
(2.) THE first information of the offence was lodged by the appellant himself at Police Station Sikar on August 30, 1999 at 8. 15 AM. THEre is no eye witness to the occurrence. THE principle evidence against the appellant consists of the first information report, which contains a full confession of guilt by the appellant. If this report is excluded, the other evidence on record is insufficient to convict the appellant. THE core question in the instant appeal is whether the statement or any portion of it is admissible in evidence. The first information report reads as under:-      " I have been residing for the last 4-5 years in my in- law's house Chokha ka Bas. My father-in-law is dead and I do not have brother-in-law. In the house only myself and my wife used to reside. My co-brother (Sadu) Jagdish got the land belonging to my father-in-law registered in his name and then sold it to Jats of Karanpura. This resulted in litigations that are pending in various courts. Since huge money had to spent in litigation, I lost my mental peace. Some 9 years back my wife gave birth to a son and thereafter I did not have any issue. I along with my wife then started visiting Suraj Das ji Maharaj in the hope of victory in court cases and birth of another child. I used to tailor clothes at the place of Babaji. My wife also used to visit Babaji who accepted her as his disciple. Yesterday i. e. , on August 29, 199 I was not feeling well and had a sleep, while I got up around 3 PM I found my wife sitting in front of Babaji, at that time she did not speak to me. I had suspicion that she was under the full influence of Babaji. I alongwith my wife then came to our house around 7 PM. When my wife was working in the kitchen, I inflicted 3 injuries with Dantli on herneck, when she fell down I strangulated her with iron Karchchi and she died. Whole night I was in my house and in the morning I have come to the police station. " On the basis of this report case under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigation was taken up. Site was inspected, inquest report was drawn, dead body was subjected to autopsy, appellant was arrested and at his instance weapon of offence got recovered, specimen of appellant's handwriting was sent to FSL and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Sessions Judge Sikar. Charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 10 witnesses. In the explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant pleaded innocence and stated that he had gone to his village Raipura and stayed there. He borrowed a sum of Rs. 1600/- from his brother and came back in the morning to his house where he found his wife lying dead. He then started weeping, in the meanwhile police arrived and caught him. He did not kill his wife and it was the police who gave beating to him and got every thing written by him. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellants as indicated herein above. Death of Gopali was indisputably homicidal in nature and as per postmortem report (Ex. P-8) she received following antemortem injuries:-      " Front of neck there is mark of ligature present 4cms in length, Multiple abrasion present Rt. side angle of mouth on cheek, nose, swollen & radish no echomoses present under ligature mark. 2. On neck 3 parallel incised wound present with bleeding under skin neck at half portion severe bleeding with fracture of 4th, 5, 6th vertibra with rupture of spinal cord. According to Dr. Ummed Singh Rathore (Pw. 5) the cause of death was shock and haemorage due to severe injury on the back of neck which leads to fracture of IV, V, VI cirvicle vertibrae and rupture of spinal cord. We first proceed to examine the testimony of Daula Ram, SHO (Pw. 10) before whom the appellant had submitted written report (Ex. P-17 ). In his cross examination Daula Ram deposed that on August 30, 1999 at 8 AM the appellant came to the police station and orally informed that he had murdered his wife. He then asked the appellant to write the report by providing him a paper on which the appellant wrote the report in 15-20 minutes. After making endorsement over the report he proceeded to the place of occurrence and remained there for 3 to 4 hours. At the time when he inspected the site he did not find Dantla and it got recovered on the basis of disclosure statement of the appellant. He got the appellant arrested at 11. 30 AM. He however stated that `karchchi' was found lying at the place of occurrence. He also deposed that during investigation he came to know that Gopali was under the influence of Suraj Das Baba, but he did not record the statement of Surajdas Bada.
(3.) DHANNA Ram (Pw. 1) is the motbir of inquest report (Ex. P-1 ). Inder Lal Sharma (Pw. 2) deposed that the police came to him and took him to the house of the appellant. Police informed him that the appellant killed his wife. He saw at the place of incident that near the dead body Dantli was lying. Dantli was sealed vide memo (Ex. P-3), on which he put his signatures. Durga Ram (Pw. 3) deposed that the police came to his village and informed that the appellant killed his wife. Om Prakash (Pw. 4) in his deposition stated that in his presence the police recovered a piece of paper from the appellant vide memo Ex. P-7, on which he put his signatures. In his cross examination he however stated that the piece of paper was brought by the police and it was never seized in his presence. Bhagwana Ram (Pw. 6) deposed that he put his signatures on the site plan (Ex. P-9 ). Recovery memo of soil was also drawn in his presence. Cheta Ram (Pw. 7) also deposed that the police came to his village and informed him that the appellant killed his wife. Pitha Ram (Pw. 8) did not support the prosecution case and he was declared hostile. Factual scenario of the case may be summarised thus:- (i) Confessional FIR was written by the appellant at the Police Station, in the presence of Daula Ram SHO (PW. 10) on the paper provided by the SHO. (ii) According to Daula Ram SHO, Dantli (cutting instrument) got recovered at the instance of the appellant, whereas Inder Lal Sharma (Pw. 2) deposed that Dantli was lying near the dead body. (iii) Statements of Suraj Das Baba, who was an important witness, were not recorded deliberately. (iv) In his explanation under Section 313 Cr. P. C. the appellant stated that he did not kill his wife and it was the police who gave beating to him and got everything written by him. It is contended on behalf of the appellant that the entire statement of the appellant is a confession made to a police officer and is not provable against the appellant having regard to section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872. On behalf of the State it is however urged that Section 25 protects only those portion of the statement which disclose the guilt of the appellant and rest of the portion is not protected by section 25, which is one of the provisions to deal with the confession made by an accused. ;