BABLOO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONFESSION of guilt put in the mouth of appellant by a witness is the basis of finding of conviction arrived at by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu in the judgment dated June 21, 2002 whereby the appellant was sentenced under section 302 IPC to suffer imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) A written report was submitted by informant Prabhati Lal (Pw. 1) at Police Station Buhana on December 10 1998 wherein it was stated that dead body of Mehu Ram was lying in a pool of blood in front of house of one Sugna Ram. Informant had suspicion that Babloo might have killed Mehu Ram by sharp edged weapon. On that report case under section 302 IPC was registered and investigation commenced. Statements of witnesses under section 161 Crpc were recorded appellant was arrested necessary memos were drawn and on completion of investigation charge sheet was filed. In due course the case came up for trial before the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) Jhunjhunu. Charge under section 302 IPC was framed against the accused, who denied the charge and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of its case examined as may as 8 witnesses. In the explanation under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. , the appellant claimed innocence. No witness in defence was however examined. Learned trial Judge on hearing final submissions convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated herein above.

(3.) EXTRA Judicial Confession may properly be made to any person or body of persons. It is not even necessary that the statement should have been addressed to any definite individual. It may have taken the form of a prayer. An extra judicial confession to be made to one who is not a person in authority and which is free from any suspicion as to its voluntary character and has also a ring of truth in it is admissible in evidence and deserves to be acted upon. EXTRA Judicial Confession made before stock witness who has casually knowing the accused is not admissible.