DASRU Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Dasru challenges his conviction u/s 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life awarded vide judgment, dated 12.8.86, passed in S.T. No. 50/86 of Bastar Sessions Division.

(2.) DECEASED Santobai was the wife of the appellant. On 3.10.1985 the two were sleeping in their house. Their children were sleeping with appellant's mother Ramobai (P.W. 4) in the adjoining house. The allegation is that for reasons not known the appellant knocked his wife to death with an axe and then went to the house of the village Kotwar Sevakram (P.W. 1) with the blood -soaked axe in his hand and confessed his guilt. The two then went to the house of village Patel Manuram (P.W. 2) where again the appellant confessed to have killed his wife. Since it was night they decided that the matter should be reported to the police the next morning. The appellant is said to have run away during the night hours. The following morning the matter was reported in the police station vide first information report, Ex. P. 1 by Sevakram. He also produced the blood -stained axe and the blanket left by the miscreant. These articles were seized. The axe was sent for chemical examination to F.S.L. Sagar. The Chemical Examiner vide report Ex. P. 19 confirmed blood thereon. However, for want of Serologist's report the origin of the blood could not be ascertained. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The learned trial Judge found the evidence of Sevakram, Manuram and Ramobai on the point of extra -judicial confession wholly reliable, he relied on Ramobai (P.W. 4), the mother of the appellant, who stated that during the fateful night when she was sleeping with the children of the appellant in her own house, she heard shouting of the appellant to the effect that the children should be taken care of he was running away. Then this lady woke up her younger son Dasau (P.W. 3) and told him all about it. Dasau then went in search of his brother, the appellant and after sometime returned back and reported to his mother that the appellant was in the house of the village Kotwar, Sevakram. The learned trial Judge concluded that the evidence of extra -judicial confession was above reproach and in view of Baldeo Rai v. State of Haryana (AIR 1991 SC 37) the same could form the basis of conviction and, accordingly, convicted the appellant. The law on extra -judicial confession, if held to be voluntary and truthful may form by itself the basis of conviction is well settled. (Baldeorai's case, supra). We have closely perused the evidence of Sevakram and Manuram and find absolutely nothing to render their testimony doubtful. Their evidence is supported by the testimony of appellant's mother which has been referred to above. If the appellant was not the killer there was no reason for him to have left his house with a blood soaked axe in the dead of the night shouting that he was running away and that his children should be looked after. He thus shouted in all probability because he wanted to inform his mother and brother that the children were at their mercy henceforth. Nothing could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant to demonstrate that the impugned conviction is infirm in any manner. In result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.