SUKKA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Sukka has been convicted under Section 302 Indian Penal Code for committing murder of his wife Bhagwathibai.

(2.) On 3-6-1985 at about 9 a.m. deceased Bhagwatibai was beheaded with axe article 'A' near the public tap in Kisani Mohalla, Gairatganj. This are belonged to Jhirilal (PW-3). According to his evidence his son-in-law accused Sukka took this axe from his house at about 8 a.m. Prembai (P.W. 2) is mother of the deceased. She has deposed that she saw the accused using this axe near the mango tree. Shortly, thereafter, deceased Bhagwatibai was found with bleeding injuries at a short distance from that tree and the blood stained axe Article 'A' was lying beside her. On the basis of this strong piece of circumstantial evidence the accused was convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for both the sides and after going through the entire material on record we are of the opinion that the FIR made by the accused on 3-6-1985 at 9.25 a.m. could not be completely discarded. The motive for the commission of this offence is clearly discernible from this F.I.R. The confessional part of the F.I.R. is not admissible. But non-confessional part of the F.I.R. can be used against the accused as evidence of conduct under Section 8 Evidence Act. The motive for commission of the crime and the relationship of the accused with the deceased do not amount to confession and can be used. (Bheru Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1994) 2 SCC 467. An admission in favour of the accussed can be taken into account to examine whether the case falls under Exception I to Section 300 particularly when there is no direct evidence disclosing as to how the attack took place. It has been so held by the Supreme Court in Murli v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1994 SC 610 : (1994 Cri LJ 1114).