SHARMA, J. - (1.) CONFESSION of guilt put in the mouth of appellant by a witness is the basis of finding of conviction arrived at by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu in the judgment dated June 21, 2002 whereby the appellant was sentenced under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.
(2.) A written report was submitted by informant Prabhati Lal (Pw. 1) at Police Station Buhana on December 10 1998 wherein it was stated that dead body of Mehu Ram was lying in a pool of blood in front of house of one Sugna Ram. Informant had suspicion that Babloo might have killed Mehu Ram by sharp edged weapon. On that report case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses under section 161 Crpc were recorded appellant was arrested necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 8 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Public Prosecutor and with their assistance scanned the material on record. HOMICIDAL DEATH: Since presence of eye witnesses could not be secured the prosecution has relied on the circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that death of Mehu Ram was homicidal. We notice that as per post mortem report (Ex. P-12) following ante mortem injuries were found on the dead body:- 1. Incised wound 41/2" x 21/2" x 4" oblique transverse from zygotic and directed backward upto above left mastoid process, being at left pinna & ext. auditon meatus canal. 2. Incised wound just below left mastoid process (being cut upper end of stem mastoid muscle & upper part of trapensus muscle) 51/2" x 2" x 2" transverse in direction. 3. Incised wound 2" x 11/2" x 1/4" medial & lower 3rd part of left forearm. 4. Abrasion 21/2" x 1/8" in front of chest wall. Having closely scrutinised the evidence of Dr. Girdhari Lal Meena (Pw. 5), who performed autopsy on the dead body, we find that the prosecution is able to establish that the death of Mehu Ram was homicidal in nature. EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION: 5. Second incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was that the appellant made extra judicial confession of the guilt before Chhatu Ram (Pw. 2) who in his deposition stated that on December 10, 1998 the appellant came to his house in wee hours and told him that on the preceding night he hit spade on the person of Mehu Ram who died instantly. He (appellant) then asked to save him. Relevant portion of the statement of Chhatu Ram reads thus:- ******** Chhatu Ram further stated that he expressed his inability to help the appellant and went to village Balaya to meet his sister. He returned after two days and on 12th he informed the police about the confession made by the appellant. He admitted that the deceased was his nephew:- ******** Chhatu Ram disowned major part of his police statement (Ex. D-1):- *********88 Evidently Chhatu Ram made the disclosure about the extra judicial confession of the accused for the first time in the police station though he met a number of persons he never told about the confession to any one else. He kept mum for two days and remained out of the village. The deceased was his nephew and he was not thickly related to the appellant. Confessions may be divided into `judicial' and `extra Judicial'. Judicial Confessions are those which are made before the magistrate or in court, in the due course of legal proceedings and it is essential that they be made of the free will of the party and with full knowledge of the nature and consequences of the confession. " Extra Judicial confessions are those which are made by the party elsewhere then before a Magistrate or in court. This term embraces not only express confessions of crime, but all those admissions and acts of the accused from which guilt may be implied.
(3.) EXTRA Judicial Confession may properly be made to any person or body of persons. It is not even necessary that the statement should have been addressed to any definite individual. It may have taken the form of a prayer. An extra judicial confession to be made to one who is not a person in authority and which is free from any suspicion as to its voluntary character and has also a ring of truth in it is admissible in evidence and deserves to be acted upon. EXTRA Judicial Confession made before stock witness who has casually knowing the accused is not admissible. In the United States, the prisoners confession, when the Corpus delicti is not otherwise proved has been held insufficient to warrant his conviction. From the stand point of reason a confession may be subject to grave informative considerations, among others that it is extremely improbable that a person should accuse himself of a serious crime. It may have been made from some false hope of benefit or fear of injury and still be false. The mind of criminal may be excited or diseased or morbid. The general rule is, that each confession should be weighed by its own circumstance. The evidence of extra-judicial confession, though a weak type of evidence, can form the basis for conviction if the confession made by the accused is voluntary, true and trustworthy. It can be acted upon if the evidence of the person, before whom the extra judicial confession has been made by the accused, inspires confidence. ;