Chattisgarh High Court
Smt Bijli Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 March, 2025
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.04.03
10:46:43 +0530
2025:CGHC:15098-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 159 of 2016
Smt Bijli Bai W/o Late Maddaram Aged About 35 Years Caste
Madiya, Profession Agriculture, R/o Village Bade Gumiyapal
Patelpara, Thana Mardum, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mardum, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer
(Division Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment On Board
(28.03.2025)
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant
under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the
2
legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2015, passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Bastar place Jagdalpur,
Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.85/2015, by which, the
appellant herein has been convicted for offence under
Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo
life imprisonment.
2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 31.07.2015, at
about 9:00 a.m., in village Bade Gumiyapal, Patelpara,
Police Station Mardum, District Bastar, the appellant herein
assaulted Sadhuram (Now deceased) by wooden pestle
(Musal) on his head, as a result of which, he suffered
grievous injuries and died, thereby committed the aforesaid
offence. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant
had reared the pig of deceased Sadhuram on Adhia. When
piglets were born, the deceased took his share to his house.
Even then the deceased was demanding the remaining pigs
which the appellant refused saying that you have taken
your share of pigs and she would not give her share of pigs.
On this, deceased Sahuram got angry and slapped her. This
made the appellant very angry and it is alleged that she
assaulted Sadhuram on the head with wooden pestle used
for pounding paddy, due to which Sahuram suffered
grievous injuries and died. After the incident, a Panchayat
meeting was convened in the village regarding the death of
Sadhuram and in presence of village Sarpanch Budhram
Poyami (PW-5), Dy. Sarpanch Bablu Kawasi, Patel Suklo
(PW-2) and Dasru (PW-6), the appellant is said to have
made extra-judicial confession that she had committed
murder of Sadhuram. The matter being reported to the
Police by Mose Ram (PW-1), Merg Intimation was recorded
vide Ex.P-15 and FIR was registered vide Ex. P-2. Nazari
3
Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P-7. Inquest was conducted
vide Ex. P-4 and the dead body of deceased Sadhuram was
subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. N. S.
Nag (PW-9), who proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-11),
according to which, cause of death was internal/external
hemorrhagic shock due to head injury and death was
homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of
appellant (Ex.P/9), the weapon of offence i.e. pestle was
seized vide Ex. P-5 which was sent for chemical examination
to FSL along with other seized articles but the FSL report
has not been brought on record for the reason best known
to the prosecution. After completion of investigation, the
appellant was charge – sheeted for the aforesaid offence.
3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the
offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 13
witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The statement of
appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the
CrPC in which she denied the circumstances appearing
against her in the evidence brought on record by the
prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.
However, appellant-accused in support of her defence has
neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.
4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, convicted the
appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the
opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this
appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
5. Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for appellant,
would submit that there is no eye witness to the incident
4
and the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of
alleged extra judicial confession made by her in the
Panchayat meeting. However, the said extra-judicial
confession was not made voluntarily and it is a very weak
piece of evidence unless it is corroborated by other
circumstantial evidence and it cannot be made basis of
conviction. As such, the conviction of the appellant is
neither well-founded nor well-merited and therefore, it is
liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for
acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.
6. On the other hand, Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, learned State
counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit
that the prosecution has been able to bring home the
offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has
rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under
Section 302 of I.P.C. As such, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and went
through the records with utmost circumspection.
8. The first question for consideration is as to whether the
death of deceased Sadhuram was homicidal in nature?
9. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in
this regard relying upon the postmortem report Ex.P-11
proved by Dr. N. S. Nag (PW-9), according to which, cause of
death has been opined to be internal/external hemorrhagic
shock due to head injury and death was homicidal in
nature, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence
available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the
record and we hereby affirm the said finding.
5
10. The trial Court has convicted the appellant solely on the
basis of the extra-judicial confession made by her in village
Panchayat meeting which also stands proved from the
statements of Suklo (PW-2) & Dalgu (PW-3).
11. Now, we will consider as to whether the conviction of the
appellant on the basis of extra-judicial confession is in
accordance with law or not?
12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the
evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession. It is a settled
principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra judicial
confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court,
upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence,
intends to base a conviction on an extra judicial confession,
it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is
corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the
extra judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies
or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent
as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the
Court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such
circumstances, the Court would be fully justified in ruling
such evidence out of consideration. [See : Sahadevan and
Another v. State of Tamil Nadu1 ]
13. In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), their Lordships of the
Supreme Court further considered their earlier decisions
including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2 and
pertinently laid down the principle in paragraphs 15.1, 15.8
and 16 which is as under :-
1 (2012) 6 SCC 403
2 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259
6“15.1. In Balwinder Singh (supra) this Court
stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10)“10. An extra-judicial confession by its very
nature is rather a weak type of evidence and
requires appreciation with a great deal of care
and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession
is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its
credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its
importance.”
15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be
established to be true and made voluntarily and
in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses
must be clear, unambigous and should clearly
convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the
crime. The extra-judicial confession can be
accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it
passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial
confession should inspire confidence and the
court should find out whether there are other
cogent circumstances on record to support it.
(Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B.3 and Pancho v.
State of Haryana4.)
The principles
16. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred
judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to
state the principles which would make an extra-
judicial confession an admissible piece of
evidence capable of forming the basis of
conviction of an accused. These percepts would
guide the judicial mind while dealing with the
veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily
relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to
have been made by the accused :
(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak
evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the
court with greater care and caution.
(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be
truthful.
(iii) It should inspire confidence.
3 (2011) 11 SCC 754
4 (2011) 10 SCC 165
7
(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater
credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported
by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further
corroborated by other prosecution evidence.
(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis
of conviction, it should not suffer from any
material discrepancies and inherent
improbabilities.
(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved
like any other fact and in accordance with law.”
14. The principle of law laid down in Sahadevan (supra) has
further been followed with approval in the matter of
Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh5 and in the
matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar6
wherein the following principle of law has been laid down by
their Lordships in paragraph 5 of the report :-
“EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRA – JUDICIAL
CONFESSION
5. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned,
the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece
of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained
on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided
that the confession is proved to be voluntary and
truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The
evidentiary value of such confession also depends
on the person to whom it is made. Going by the
natural course of human conduct, normally, a
person would confide about a crime committed by
him only with such a person in whom he has
implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a
confession to someone who is totally a stranger to
him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with
the reliability of the confession keeping in view the
circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of
rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an
extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other
evidence on record, it acquires more credibility. ”
5 Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018, judgment dated 16/03/2023
6 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197
8
15. In the matter of Moorthy vs State of Tamil Nadu7 the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied upon the principle laid
down in Pawan Kumar Chourasia (supra).
16. In the matter of State of Punjab v. Keval Krishan8, their
Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in para 20 as
under:-
“….20. Insofar as the evidence of extra judicial
confession made by the accused is concerned,
the same was provided by PW-3, a member of the
Panchayat wherein the deceased resided.
Ordinarily a person makes a confession either to
absolve oneself of the burden of guilt or to seek
protection under the hope that the person to
whom confession is made would protect him.
Normally a confession to absolve oneself of the
guilt is made to a person on whom the confessor
reposes confidence. The High Court noticed that
there was no evidence to demonstrate that the
accused had any prior relations with PW-3 or
that the accused hoped for, or sought, any help
from PW-3 and, therefore, made the confession
to him. Notably, the accused denied making any
such confession. For the reasons above,
including other, which need not be put on
record, the High Court discarded the
circumstance of the accused making a
confession before PW-3 on 25.12.1998.
Otherwise also, an extra judicial confession is a7 2023 SCC Online SC 1027
8 2023 SCC Online SC 746
9very weak type of evidence and solely on its basis
a conviction is not ordinarily to be recorded…..”
17. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the
aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of
the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that after the incident, a
Panchayat meeting was convened in the village in which
Sarpanch Budhram Poyami (PW-5), Dy. Sarpanch Bablu
Kawasi who has not been examined, Patel Suklo (PW-2) and
Dasru (PW-6) were present. This fact is also proved from the
statements of Mose Ram (PW-1), Suklo (PW-2) and Dalgu
(PW-3). Suklo (PW-2) and Dalgu (PW-3) have stated that in
the Panchayat meeting, the appellant had given extra-
judicial confession of having committed murder of
Sadhuram. Dalgu (PW-3), in para 1 of his court statement,
has clearly stated that the appellant was called in the
Panchayat meeting where she had made the extra-judicial
confession. This shows that the appellant did not appear
voluntarily in the Panchayat meeting to make extra-judicial
confession. Similarly, as held by the Supreme Court in the
matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia (supra) and going by
the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person
would confide about a crime committed by him/her only
with such a person in whom he has implicit faith and would
not make extra-judicial confession openly in a public place
and that too in the meeting convened by the villagers in
village Panchayat in the presence of so many persons with
whom he/she has no close relation.
18. In the instant case, the extra-judicial confession is said to
have been made by the appellant in the village Panchayat
meeting in which she was called by the villagers, which
cannot be voluntary and true. Moreover, it is a weak piece of
10
evidence and requires thorough corroboration but there is
no corroborative piece of evidence brought on record by the
prosecution. Therefore, in absence of any corroboration to
the evidence of extra-judicial confession, it would be unsafe
to maintain the conviction recorded by the trial Court only
on the basis of extra-judicial confession made by the
appellant which is neither true nor voluntary and does not
inspire confidence.
19. Furthermore, pursuant to the memorandum statement of
the appellant Ex.P-9, the alleged weapon of offence i.e.
pestle (Musal) was seized vide Ex.P-5 which was sent for
chemical examination to FSL but the FSL report has not
been brought on record for the reason best known to the
prosecution. There is no evidence on record to hold that the
said pestle was used by the appellant in commission of the
offence. Even otherwise, as per the principle of law laid
down in the case of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State
of Rajasthan9, mere recovery of pestle pursuant to the
memorandum statement of the appellant cannot lead to the
conclusion that the appellant has committed the said
offence. As such, except the fact that the death was
homicidal in nature, there is no direct or circumstantial
evidence available on record to hold the conviction of the
appellant under section 302 of IPC.
20. In that view of the matter, we are unable to maintain the
conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence.
Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2015
passed by the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the
appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set
9 (2011) 11 SCC 724
11
aside/quashed on the basis of benefit of doubt and the
appellant is acquitted of the said charge.
21. The appellant is on bail. She need not surrender in this case.
However, her bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of
six months in view of the provisions contained in Section
437A of the CrPC.
22. This criminal appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
23. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original
record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court
for necessary information & action, if any.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge Judge
Khatai
[ad_1]
Source link