ATMARAM NAMDEO Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Atmaram has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to the imprisonment for life on the allegation that he killed his own father on the night between the 5th and 6th of March, 1967 at village Hingne-Karegaon.

(2.) Briefly, the prosecution case was that the appellant Atmaram was demanding his share from his father, Namdeo, and there were disputes and friction between the father and son for some time. The deceased, Namdeo, owned about 25 acres of land at village HingneKaregaon, and besides the appellant, Namdeo had two other sons, Shaligram and Janardan, all of them apparently staying together in the village. One of the fields of Namdeo, survey No. 123, was known as "Chambharkhori" and the appellant worked in that field with his father. They had establishment on the land and there was a Mandav as well as a hut and the bullocks used to be tethered on the land. On the date of the incident, the appellant had carried bread for himself and for his father from his house as usual and that was at night. After taking meals, Namdeo had retired, and according to the appellant, he had gone out to visit a Tamasha. There were persons sleeping or working in the neighbouring fields and Sukhdeo and Chatar Singh were among them. According to Sukhdeo, when he was about to go to sleep, he heard shouts of the appellant calling him by name "Sukhdeo" and he gave answering shouts that they were coming and Sukhdeo and Sakharam went towards Atmaram's field. When they got there, they found Atmaram near the cot of his father and his father was lying dead on the cot, and when they asked Atmaram, 2he told them that his father was murdered. Sukhdeo says that he could see the injury to the abdomen and the deceased's intestines having come out. After some time, Fulsingh and Chatarsingh also came there and they, on similar questions, received similar answers from the appellant. It was the appellant who asked them to go to his house and inform his brother. Accordingly, Fulsingh and Sakharam went to the village and informed Shaligram who came to the field. The body was brought home, but on an advice that it had better not be removed from the place where the deceased was found in an injured condition, it was again brought back. A report about this occurrence was made at the Police station through Amrsingh Patel and the Patel's report shows that Namdeo was found dead and the body was lying in the field. No one is indicated as suspected to be responsible for the death. Thereafter the Police arrived and it is alleged that the appellant discovered a sickle as a result of his statement, lying under the grass. That sickle was sent for Chemical Analyser's report and the report did not show the presence of any human blood on the sickle. Most of the investigation was apparently complete by 7th or 8th March, 1967, the accused himself being taken in custody on 7th March. Thereafter, the appellant was sent to the Taluka Magistrate Mr. Mohod, for recording his judicial confession; Ex. 48 is the record of the Judicial confession by Mr. Mohod. Mr. Mohod administered oath to the appellant and thereafter recorded his statement. The record of the confession shows that probably Mr. Mohod was not very familiar with the procedure inasmuch as many of the instructions do not seem to have been adhered to in recording the Judicial confession. On the basis of the Judicial confession, the alleged discovery of the weapon of offence and the presence of the appellant in the field when the deceased might have met his death, were relied upon as the principal plank in the prosecution case. The learned Judge accepted the Judicial confession and also the evidence relating to the discovery of the sickle as the weapon of offence. The defence of the appellant that he was not present when Namdeo was attacked or received injury, and that he had gone to see tamasha was rejected apparently on ground that there was no evidence to corroborate this statement of the appellant. The fact that there were disputes between the appellant and his father over the property has also been taken into consideration as furnishing adequate motive to do away with his father. On these findings the appellant is convicted for killing his father and sentenced as already stated.

(3.) In support of this appeal, three principal contentions are raised:- (1) That the alleged discovery of the Sickle is not a circumstance tending towards proof of criminality of the accused because it is not connected with the crime, there being no blood or human blood found on the weapon; (2) That the confession is vitiated on account of administration of oath which robs it its voluntary nature and is otherwise invalid because it had been brought about under Police pressure as alleged by the appellant; (3) That the Magistrate, Mr. Mohod, had no jurisdiction to record the judicial confession, inasmuch as he was not a Magistrate validly empowered under the Code of Criminal Procedure to record statements under Section 164 of the Code and the confession recorded by such an authority is not admissible in evidence.