MATHRA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants Champalal and Smt. Mathra have been convicted for offence under Section 302 I. P. C. and sentenced to imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo 6 months rigorous imprisonment. THEy have also been convicted for offence under Section 201 I. P. C. and sentenced to 1 year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -.

(2.) THE prosecution case, as it emerges from the record is that the appellants Smt. Mathra and Champalal are the wife and younger brother of the deceased Lumba Ram. Lumba Ram about five days prior to Deepawali of the year 1996 disappeared. PW. 12 Rana Ram received two Inland letters purported to be from Lumba Ram, informing about his welfare. While one letter was delivered by post, another by a messenger. THEre was no address of the addressee. Lumba Ram was an illiterate person. Rana Ram and others suspected some foul play in the matter. P. W. 5 Laka Ram expressed suspicion as to illicit relations between Champa Lal and Mathra. PW. 12 Rana Ram apprised his brother PW. 1 Geprram of missing of Lumba Ram. THE search by all the members of the family did not yield anything. Thus, the matter was reported to village Sarpanch PW. 4 Smt. Radha. On 18. 12. 96 Champa Lal and Mathra were produced before PW. 4 Smt. Radha. On interrogation by Radha Devi in presence of PW. 3 Hema Ram both of them made a confession to the effect that they killed Lumba Ram and buried in the filed. Under the instruction of Smt. Radha Devi, a written F. I. R. was lodged by PW. 1 Geprram at Police Station, Kerla. Police registered a case for offence under Section 302 & 201 IPC and proceeded with investigation. Both the accused persons were arrested. THE accused persons gave information pointing out the place where the dead body of Lumba Ram was buried, which was exhumated in presence of the S. D. M. Miss Praghya Kevalani, the Dy. Superintendent of Police Ashok Kumar and three doctors. THE autopsy was conducted on the spot by a Board of three doctors. In pursuance of the informations given by the accused persons incriminating articles were recovered. After usual investigation, police laid charge-sheet against both the appellants for offence under Sections 302 & 201 I. P. C.

(3.) WE shall deal with the each circumstance in seriatum :- EXTRA JUDICIAL CONFESSION OF THE GUILTY BY THE APPELLANTS: Evidence of oral confession of guilt to one who is not a person in authority is known as extra judicial confession, if voluntary can be relied upon by the court along with other evidence in convicting the accused. Thus, extra judicial confession if free from any suspicion as to its voluntary character and has also a ring of truth, it is admissible in evidence against the accused and can be acted upon. Reference may be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Thimma vs. The State of Mysore It is held by the Apex Court in Narayan Singh & Ors. vs. State of M. P. (3), that while considering the admissibility of the extra judicial confession, it is not open to the court to start with the presumption that such evidence is a weak type of evidence. Since its admissibility would depend upon the nature of the confession, the time when the confession was made and the credibility of the witnesses who testify to such evidence needs to be closely examined. Law does not require that evidence of extra judicial confession should in all cases be corroborated where the extra judicial confession is proved by an independent witness, who is responsible officer and who bears no animus against the accused person. There is no justification for the trial court to disbelieve the evidence of such a witness particularly when the extra judicial confession is corroborated by the recovery. It must also be satisfied that there was no pressure or threat and the extra judicial confession was made freely. Suffice it to say that as a matter of caution the court requires some material corroboration to an extra judicial confessional statement, corroboration, which connect the accused person with the alleged crime.