SULTAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4. 12. 1995 passed by Sessions Judge, Merta convicting the appellant for offence u/s. 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- ; in default of payment to further undergo 2 months rigorous imprisonment. He has also been convicted for offence u/s. 201 I. P. C. and sentenced to 3 years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ -. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the prosecution case is that on 25. 08. 1994, P. W. 4 Narpat Singh submitted a missing written report at Police Station, Merta Road stating that his sister Bidam Kanwar was married to Sultan Singh about 15 years back. In February, 1994 deceased Bidam Kanwar was sent to her in-laws house. About a month back when Harnath Singh went to collect her, but no satisfactory reply was given, about her availability. Dungar Singh the elder brother of appellant Sultan Singh told him that she left the house and has not returned. He also stated that they were under the impression that she has gone to her parents house. After four days, he himself went to the house of Sultan Singh and he was also given the same answer by Dungar Singh in presence of appellant Sultan Singh. An attempt was again made by sending P. W. 15 Gopal Singh. At this stage Dungar Singh advised him to drop the matter. He also made an offer for payment of money if they so like. Dungar Singh also suggested that if any body ask them, about Smt. Bidam Kanwar they should say that she has died and similarly if any body ask them they would reply that she has gone to village Bassi (parental house ). On 23. 8. 94 Sultan Singh and Dungar Singh met them but they did not disclose as to what has really happened to Mst. Bidam Kanwar. On this information police registered a missing report. On 8. 9. 94, P. W. 4 Narpat Singh submitted a written report addressed to Dy. Superintendent of Police, Merta City stating that on 7. 9. 94 his maternal uncle P. W. 13 Kushal Singh and P. W. 8 Sangram Singh Ex. Sarpanch came to his house and disclosed that on 6. 4. 94 appellant Sultan Singh visited the house of Sangram Singh and asked him to pursuade the family members of Bidam Kanwar not to further proceed in the matter and drop the complaint made before the police. He also made a confession that the Bidam Kanwar has been killed by him. He also confessed that a wrong has been committed by him and he was prepared to do whatever they say. He also proposed to transfer the entire land of his share in the name of his son Nandu Singh residing in village Mai Rajanpura Danta Ramgarh. He (Narpat Singh) expressed suspicion that his sister Mst. Bidam Kanwar might have been killed by appellant Sultan Singh, his brother Dungar Singh and his wife Mst. Meera Kanwar. On this information police registered a case for offence under Sec. 302/201/34 I. P. C. and proceeded with investigation. The appellant was apprehended on 11. 9. 94 vide Ex. P. 39. In pursuance of the information given by the appellant the dead body of Mst. Bidam Kanwar was exhumed from the house of appellant vide Ex. P. 30 in presence of P. W. 17 B. D. Vadav Sub Divisional Magistrate, Merta. The police prepared the inquest and sent the dead body for post mortem. After usual investigation Police laid charge-sheet against the appellant for offence u/s. 302 & 201 I. P. C.

(3.) RECENTLY, the Apex Court in Gora Singh vs. State of Rajasthan (2) has held that the court is required to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out as to whether such a confession is not inspited by any improper or colateral consideration or circumvention of law suggesting that it may not be true. The court further held that all relevant circumstances such as to the person whom the confession is made, the time and place of making it, the circumstances in which it was made have to be scrutinised. The court also referred to a decision of the Apex Court in Madan Gopal vs. Naval Dutt (3), wherein it has been held that extra judicial confession, which is not obtained by coercion, promise for favour of false hope and is planery in character and volutary in nature can be made basis for conviction even without corroboration. In the instant case the confession has been made before Sangram Singh a person of status in the village and also a good friend of P. W. 13 Kushal Singh the maternal uncle of the deceased Bidam Kanwar. The appellant could repose confidence in him hoping help, protection and to get through the offer to drop the proceedings. The extra judicial confession has been made at a time when the appellant had come under a great pressure inasmuch as a missing report of Mst. Bidam Kanwar was being filed with the police and the members of the family of Mst. Bidam Kanwar were regularly visiting his house. There is nothing to show that the confession was inspited by any improper and colateral consideration. There is no suggestion that the extra judicial confession was made under coercion, promise of favour of false hope. We are satisfied that the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before P. W. 8 Sangram Singh is voluntary and truthful. RECOVERY OF THE DEAD BODY AT THE INSTANCE OF THE APPELLANT:-