Smt Bijli Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2025 Latest Caselaw 2701 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Smt Bijli Bai vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 March, 2025

Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal

Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal

                                         1


                          Digitally signed
                          by BHOLA
                          NATH KHATAI
                          Date:
                          2025.04.03
                          10:46:43 +0530




                                               2025:CGHC:15098-DB


                                                            NAFR

    HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

                       CRA No. 159 of 2016

Smt Bijli Bai W/o Late Maddaram Aged About 35 Years Caste
Madiya, Profession Agriculture, R/o Village Bade Gumiyapal
Patelpara, Thana Mardum, District Bastar Chhattisgarh.
                                                    ... Appellant
                                   versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Mardum, District
Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
                                                ... Respondent


For Appellant      :     Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate
For Respondent     :     Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer


                         (Division Bench)

           Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
         Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal


                        Judgment On Board
                            (28.03.2025)

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

1. This criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the

legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.12.2015, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bastar place Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.85/2015, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment.

2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 31.07.2015, at about 9:00 a.m., in village Bade Gumiyapal, Patelpara, Police Station Mardum, District Bastar, the appellant herein assaulted Sadhuram (Now deceased) by wooden pestle (Musal) on his head, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries and died, thereby committed the aforesaid offence. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant had reared the pig of deceased Sadhuram on Adhia. When piglets were born, the deceased took his share to his house. Even then the deceased was demanding the remaining pigs which the appellant refused saying that you have taken your share of pigs and she would not give her share of pigs. On this, deceased Sahuram got angry and slapped her. This made the appellant very angry and it is alleged that she assaulted Sadhuram on the head with wooden pestle used for pounding paddy, due to which Sahuram suffered grievous injuries and died. After the incident, a Panchayat meeting was convened in the village regarding the death of Sadhuram and in presence of village Sarpanch Budhram Poyami (PW-5), Dy. Sarpanch Bablu Kawasi, Patel Suklo (PW-2) and Dasru (PW-6), the appellant is said to have made extra-judicial confession that she had committed murder of Sadhuram. The matter being reported to the Police by Mose Ram (PW-1), Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-15 and FIR was registered vide Ex. P-2. Nazari

Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P-7. Inquest was conducted vide Ex. P-4 and the dead body of deceased Sadhuram was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. N. S. Nag (PW-9), who proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-11), according to which, cause of death was internal/external hemorrhagic shock due to head injury and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant (Ex.P/9), the weapon of offence i.e. pestle was seized vide Ex. P-5 which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along with other seized articles but the FSL report has not been brought on record for the reason best known to the prosecution. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge - sheeted for the aforesaid offence.

3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The statement of appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which she denied the circumstances appearing against her in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, appellant-accused in support of her defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

4. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

5. Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for appellant, would submit that there is no eye witness to the incident

and the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of alleged extra judicial confession made by her in the Panchayat meeting. However, the said extra-judicial confession was not made voluntarily and it is a very weak piece of evidence unless it is corroborated by other circumstantial evidence and it cannot be made basis of conviction. As such, the conviction of the appellant is neither well-founded nor well-merited and therefore, it is liable to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.

6. On the other hand, Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of I.P.C. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

8. The first question for consideration is as to whether the death of deceased Sadhuram was homicidal in nature?

9. Learned trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding in this regard relying upon the postmortem report Ex.P-11 proved by Dr. N. S. Nag (PW-9), according to which, cause of death has been opined to be internal/external hemorrhagic shock due to head injury and death was homicidal in nature, which is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding.

10. The trial Court has convicted the appellant solely on the basis of the extra-judicial confession made by her in village Panchayat meeting which also stands proved from the statements of Suklo (PW-2) & Dalgu (PW-3).

11. Now, we will consider as to whether the conviction of the appellant on the basis of extra-judicial confession is in accordance with law or not?

12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the evidentiary value of extra-judicial confession. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the Court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the Court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. [See : Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu1 ]

13. In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered their earlier decisions including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2 and pertinently laid down the principle in paragraphs 15.1, 15.8 and 16 which is as under :-

1 (2012) 6 SCC 403 2 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259

"15.1. In Balwinder Singh (supra) this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10)

"10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance."

15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambigous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it.

(Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B.3 and Pancho v. State of Haryana4.)

The principles

16. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra- judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These percepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused :

(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.

(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

(iii) It should inspire confidence.

3 (2011) 11 SCC 754 4 (2011) 10 SCC 165

(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law."

14. The principle of law laid down in Sahadevan (supra) has further been followed with approval in the matter of Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh5 and in the matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar6 wherein the following principle of law has been laid down by their Lordships in paragraph 5 of the report :-

"EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRA - JUDICIAL CONFESSION

5. As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility. "

5 Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018, judgment dated 16/03/2023 6 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

15. In the matter of Moorthy vs State of Tamil Nadu7 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied upon the principle laid down in Pawan Kumar Chourasia (supra).

16. In the matter of State of Punjab v. Keval Krishan8, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held in para 20 as under:-

"....20. Insofar as the evidence of extra judicial confession made by the accused is concerned, the same was provided by PW-3, a member of the Panchayat wherein the deceased resided. Ordinarily a person makes a confession either to absolve oneself of the burden of guilt or to seek protection under the hope that the person to whom confession is made would protect him. Normally a confession to absolve oneself of the guilt is made to a person on whom the confessor reposes confidence. The High Court noticed that there was no evidence to demonstrate that the accused had any prior relations with PW-3 or that the accused hoped for, or sought, any help from PW-3 and, therefore, made the confession to him. Notably, the accused denied making any such confession. For the reasons above, including other, which need not be put on record, the High Court discarded the circumstance of the accused making a confession before PW-3 on 25.12.1998. Otherwise also, an extra judicial confession is a

7 2023 SCC Online SC 1027 8 2023 SCC Online SC 746

very weak type of evidence and solely on its basis a conviction is not ordinarily to be recorded....."

17. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that after the incident, a Panchayat meeting was convened in the village in which Sarpanch Budhram Poyami (PW-5), Dy. Sarpanch Bablu Kawasi who has not been examined, Patel Suklo (PW-2) and Dasru (PW-6) were present. This fact is also proved from the statements of Mose Ram (PW-1), Suklo (PW-2) and Dalgu (PW-3). Suklo (PW-2) and Dalgu (PW-3) have stated that in the Panchayat meeting, the appellant had given extra- judicial confession of having committed murder of Sadhuram. Dalgu (PW-3), in para 1 of his court statement, has clearly stated that the appellant was called in the Panchayat meeting where she had made the extra-judicial confession. This shows that the appellant did not appear voluntarily in the Panchayat meeting to make extra-judicial confession. Similarly, as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia (supra) and going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him/her only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith and would not make extra-judicial confession openly in a public place and that too in the meeting convened by the villagers in village Panchayat in the presence of so many persons with whom he/she has no close relation.

18. In the instant case, the extra-judicial confession is said to have been made by the appellant in the village Panchayat meeting in which she was called by the villagers, which cannot be voluntary and true. Moreover, it is a weak piece of

evidence and requires thorough corroboration but there is no corroborative piece of evidence brought on record by the prosecution. Therefore, in absence of any corroboration to the evidence of extra-judicial confession, it would be unsafe to maintain the conviction recorded by the trial Court only on the basis of extra-judicial confession made by the appellant which is neither true nor voluntary and does not inspire confidence.

19. Furthermore, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-9, the alleged weapon of offence i.e. pestle (Musal) was seized vide Ex.P-5 which was sent for chemical examination to FSL but the FSL report has not been brought on record for the reason best known to the prosecution. There is no evidence on record to hold that the said pestle was used by the appellant in commission of the offence. Even otherwise, as per the principle of law laid down in the case of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan9, mere recovery of pestle pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the said offence. As such, except the fact that the death was homicidal in nature, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence available on record to hold the conviction of the appellant under section 302 of IPC.

20. In that view of the matter, we are unable to maintain the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2015 passed by the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set

9 (2011) 11 SCC 724

aside/quashed on the basis of benefit of doubt and the appellant is acquitted of the said charge.

21. The appellant is on bail. She need not surrender in this case.

However, her bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437A of the CrPC.

22. This criminal appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.

23. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information & action, if any.

                      Sd/-                                  Sd/-
             (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
                   Judge                                   Judge




Khatai