KESRA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KESRA Ram son of Labhu Ram Jat of village Rohidawali, Tehsil Ganganagar has been convicted by the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar on October 5, 1976 under Section 302 IPC for murdering his wife Mst. Heera and sentenced to imprisonment for life.

(2.) APPELLANT Kesra Ram along with his wife Mst. Heera deceased and his children were living in their house in village Rohidawali. Tehsil Ganganagar. His mother and father lived separate from him in a 'kotha' in the same compound. It is alleged that during the night intervening 21st and 22nd March, 1975, at about 9. p.m., the appellant murdered his wife Mst. Heera by inflicting injuries on her by 'kassi' Article 1. It is further the case of the prosecution that in front of the house of the appellant, the houses are of Het Ram (PW 8) and his uncle Mukh Ram (PW 4) in the same Guwadi. At about 9. p.m. on March 22, 1975, the appellant came out of his house with a 'kassi' in his hand and told Mukh Ram (PW 4), who was standing in front of his house along with Het Ram (PW 8), that he had murdered his wife and would now kill Mukh Ram. The appellant inflicted blows with the 'kassi' on various parts of the body of Mukh Ram. His nephew Het Ram tried to rescue Mukh Ram whereupon the appellant also inflicted injury on the hand of Het Ram. Then the appellant himself went to the Police Station, Hindu -mal Kot, and lodged a report Ex. P 13 at 10 a.m. Panna Lal (PW 1) was Up -sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Rohidawali. When he came to know that Mst. Heera had been murdered he went to the house of the appellant and saw the dead body of Mst. Heera lying inside the 'kotha' of the appellant in between 2 cots lying there. At that time, the appellant was not at his house but his parents and children were there. Panna Lal, thereupon sent a report Ex. P 1 to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Hindmual Kot, Ramswaroop (PW 5) was the Station House Officer at Police Station, Hindumal Kot. After recording the report Ex. P 13 lodged by the appellant, Ramswaroop immediately arrested the appellant. After necessary investigation, the police filed a charge -sheet against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC in the court of the Judicial Magistrate, Ganganagar who committed the appellant to the court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, after trial convicted the appellant and sentenced him as aforesaid.

(3.) AS already stated, the appellant had himself gone to the Police Station, Hindumal Kot, on March 22, 1975 and lodged there a report Ex. P 13. In this report, the appellant narrated the incident and confessed that he had murdered his wife Mst. Heera by 'kassi'. He also stated in that when he was coming to the Police Station to make this report, had some quarrel with Mukh Ram and Het Ram in front of his house. It is well settled that if the first Information Report is given by the accused himself, fact of his giving the information is admissible against him as evidence of his conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. If the information is a non -confessional statement, it is admissible against the accused as an admission under Section 21 of the Evidence Act and is relevant. But a confessional First Information Report cannot be used against the accused in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. If the First Information Report is given by the accused to a Police Officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25 of the Evidence Act. The confession including not only the admissions of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of Section is lifted by Section 27. The test of severability is misleading and the entire confessional statement is hit by Section 25 and save and except as provided by Section 27 and save and except the formal part identifying the accused as the maker of the report, no part of it could be tendered in evidence. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Aghnoo Nageshia v. State of Bihar : 1966CriLJ100.