MRINAL KANTIDAS Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24. 1. 1998 passed by the Special Judge, N. D. P. S. Cases, Jodhpur convicting the appellant of offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-; in default of payment to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that on 17. 08. 1996 at about 8:40 AM PW-8 Corp. Praveen Sethi submitted a written report at the Air Force Police Out Post before Inspector Lal Mohd. stating inter alia that in the morning at about 6:45 AM Sgt. Pote from guardroom informed provost office on telephone to the effect that Sgt. Mrinal Kanti Dass has killed his wife Kakoli Dass as per the telephonic message given by him. On receiving this information, PW-6 Sgt. Sanjeev asked him and PW-9 Sgt. Birbal Vishnoi to proceed to the place of incident. He alongwith PW-9 Sgt. Birbal reached at the house of Sgt. Mrinal Kanti Dass at A- 57, Arvind Nagar. They found the dead body of Smt. Kakoli Dass lying on the double bed. Appellant Sgt. Mrinal Kanti Dass confessed that in the night a quarrel took place between him and his wife and in the quarrel, he killed his wife by strangulation. PW-15 Lal Mohd. proceeded for investigation and sent the report at Police Station for regular registration of First Information Report. The police prepared the inquest and sent the dead body for post mortem. The appellant was arrested on the same day. After usual investigation, police laid chargesheet against the appellant for offence under Section 302 I. P. C.

(3.) IT is true that courts have in number of cases pointed out that confession is a weak piece of evidence. One such case has been referred by the learned counsel being Makhan Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra ). In the said case on appreciation of evidence the court found that there was nothing to indicate that the witness before whom the confession is alleged to have been made by the accused was a person having influence with the police or a person or some status to protect him from harassment. In the said case the learned counsel for the State also conceded that the extra judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and is hardly of any consequence. IT appears that the learned counsel appearing for the State did not bothered to invite the attention of the court to earlier decision in Piara Singh vs. State of Punjab (supra ). wherein the Apex Court observed that the trial court was in error in considering that extra judicial confession is a weak type of evidence. The Court observed:- "thus, the learned Sessions Judge regarded the extra judicial confession to be a very weak type of evidence and, therefore, refused to rely on the same. Here the learned Sessions Judge committed a clear error of law. Law does not require that the evidence of an extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated. "