SUKHLAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Out of two persons prosecuted for the murder of one Shyamabai in the night between 4th and 5th January 1981. Sabulal has been acquitted while the appellant has been convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code. He has however been acquitted of yet another charge under section 316 Indian Penal Code.

(2.) The prosecution has adduced no direct evidence but lied upon only certain circumstantial evidence. The appellant and the deceased were seen together in the evening on 4-1-1981. Two witnesses has been examined to establish this fact. One of them is Kachrabai (P.W. 4) whose statement had not been considered by the lower court at all. Kachrabai deposed that with her was Hanslal (P.W. 10) at the relevant time. The lower court accepted the testimony-of Hanslal. However Hans Lal cross-examination seems to have been completely overlooked by the lower court. There he has denied to have been the appellant and the accused goings together. We also that Kacbrabais testimony is also Shaken. She admitted on the date when she came in the Court to depose her statement recorded by the Police has read over to her by the Sub-Inspector. She also admitted that she was afraid of the Sub-Inspector. These two witnesses, therefore, in our opinion do not help the prosecution at all and it will not be safe to rely upon their testimony to hold anyone guilty of a serious charge like murder.

(3.) The evidence of extra-judicial confession in the present case is in our opinion is too weak to be relied upon. The two witnesses i.e. Nathulal (P.W. 6) and Pannalal (P.W.7.) to whom the appellant is said to have made the confession have contradicted each other even as regards of the place where the confession is said to have been made. According to Nathu Lal, the confession was made at the spot itself where the deceased body of Shyambai was found and that too in the presence of the police officers. Pannalal contradicted himself together and made an improved version in court deposing that he went to the place where the appellant was working and it is there that he extracted the confession from him. In the court he deposed that he must asked the appellant as to the whereabouts of Shyamabai and then the appellant confessed his guilt before him. He was confronted with her case diary statement (Ex. D-l) where he stated that he stated that be tried to explain matters to the appellant and after some moment of persuasions only the appellant came out with the confession in our opinion this evidence of extra judicial confession is not worthy of reliance and no conviction can be founded upon it, as it is this type of evidence which is weak to form the basis of any conviction unless corroborated by other cogent evidence, we have earlier shown that there is no such evidence.