1988 JTR(SC) 657
1989 AIR(SC) 483 ; 1989 CriLR 106 ; 1989 CriLR(Cal) 38 ; 1988 3 Crimes(SC) 773 ; 1989 CrLJ 823 ; 1988 EastCrC(SC) 699 ; 1988 4 JT 104 ; 1989 1 RCR(Cri) 234 ; 1988 2 Scale 999 ; 1989 Supp1 SCC 161 ; 1989 SCC(Cri) 322 ; 1989 1 SCC(Cri) 322
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.C. RAY AND N.D. OJHA, JJ.
Manguli Dei, Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 439 of 1978
Decided on 11-10-1988.
Advocates appeared
Mr. S. K. Bagg Amicus Curiae, for Appellant; Mr. R. K. Mehta, Advocate, for Respondent.
Act
Referred
:EVIDENCE ACT : S.45, S.27, S.24
INDIAN PENAL CODE : S.302, S.201
(A) Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 address offences of murder and acts done to conceal such offences. Section 302 defines and punishes murder, Section 201 penalizes causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, and Section 34 addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. These provisions applied to assess whether the appellant was guilty of murder and of destroying evidence by burying the victims body, and whether a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC could sustain conviction in the absence of corroborative physical evidence.
(B) A judicial confession that is voluntary, clear, and inculpatory can form the basis for conviction under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. When a body is recovered from a concealed location on information from the accused and the post-mortem is inconclusive due to decomposition, such a confession gains significant evidentiary value. The accused cannot easily escape liability by challenging the post-mortem when the recovery and confession align, and courts may convict under Section 302 if the circumstances, including the act of concealment, prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts of the case:
On February 19, 1973, the victim was assaulted by the appellant and another person, resulting in death. The body was buried in a room of the victims house and later recovered on the appellants information. The post-mortem, conducted ten days after the burial, revealed a highly decomposed body with unclear injury details. The appellant and another accused were charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court relied on the judicial confession to convict the appellant of murder.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the judicial confession was reliable, that the recovery of the body from a concealed location on the appellants information supported the confession, and that the post-mortem was inconclusive due to decomposition and did not negate the possibility of murder. The court found the offence of murder proved and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with a separate conviction under Section 201 but no distinct sentence for the latter.
Issues:
Whether a judicial confession recorded by a 1st Class Magistrate is sufficient to convict in the absence of corroborative medical evidence when the post-mortem is inconclusive due to decomposition, and whether Section 302 is applicable as opposed to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a voluntary and inculpatory judicial confession places the accused at the scene and explains the concealment of the body, and the post-mortem is necessarily inconclusive, the court can rely on the confession and the surrounding circumstances to hold the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34.
Result:
Appeal dismissed; appellant convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, with the additional conviction under Section 201 but without a separate sentence.
(A) Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34 address offences of murder and acts done to conceal such offences. Section 302 defines and punishes murder, Section 201 penalizes causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false information to screen offenders, and Section 34 addresses acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. These provisions applied to assess whether the appellant was guilty of murder and of destroying evidence by burying the victims body, and whether a judicial confession recorded under Section 164 CrPC could sustain conviction in the absence of corroborative physical evidence.
(B) A judicial confession that is voluntary, clear, and inculpatory can form the basis for conviction under Sections 302 and 34 of the IPC. When a body is recovered from a concealed location on information from the accused and the post-mortem is inconclusive due to decomposition, such a confession gains significant evidentiary value. The accused cannot easily escape liability by challenging the post-mortem when the recovery and confession align, and courts may convict under Section 302 if the circumstances, including the act of concealment, prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
Facts of the case:
On February 19, 1973, the victim was assaulted by the appellant and another person, resulting in death. The body was buried in a room of the victims house and later recovered on the appellants information. The post-mortem, conducted ten days after the burial, revealed a highly decomposed body with unclear injury details. The appellant and another accused were charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court acquitted all accused, but the High Court relied on the judicial confession to convict the appellant of murder.
Findings of Court:
The High Court held that the judicial confession was reliable, that the recovery of the body from a concealed location on the appellants information supported the confession, and that the post-mortem was inconclusive due to decomposition and did not negate the possibility of murder. The court found the offence of murder proved and sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, with a separate conviction under Section 201 but no distinct sentence for the latter.
Issues:
Whether a judicial confession recorded by a 1st Class Magistrate is sufficient to convict in the absence of corroborative medical evidence when the post-mortem is inconclusive due to decomposition, and whether Section 302 is applicable as opposed to Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code.
Ratio Decidendi:
Where a voluntary and inculpatory judicial confession places the accused at the scene and explains the concealment of the body, and the post-mortem is necessarily inconclusive, the court can rely on the confession and the surrounding circumstances to hold the accused guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 34.
Result:
Appeal dismissed; appellant convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life, with the additional conviction under Section 201 but without a separate sentence.
JUDGMENT
RAY, J. :— This is an appeal against the judgment and order made by the High Court of Orissa convicting the appellant u/S. 302of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing her to imprisonment for life. She was also convicted u/s. 201 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence has been imposed on her for this offence.
2. The prosecutions case is that on February 19, 1973 at night the appellant along with Nilamoni Patra, brother of the deceased assaulted Rathia Patra, husband of the appellant as a result of which Rathia Patra succumbed to injuries. The dead body was buried in a room of the deceaseds house in order to conceal the death. The FIR was lodged on 1st of March, 1973 by Laxman Behra P.W. 1 in the Keonjhar Garh Police Station. On 2nd March, 1973 the dead body was recovered on the basis of the information given by the appellant after digging out the earth from the room of the deceaseds house in the presence of the Tehsildar, P.W. 6. Thereafter, the post-mortem examination was held on the following day by P.W. 5, Dr. R. P. Choudhury. At the time of the post-mortem examination, the body was in a highly decomposed state. The appellant along with Nilamoni Patra was charged u/s. 302, read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code for committing the murder of Rathia Patra, husband of the appellant. They were further charged u/S. 201 of the Indian Penal Code for dumping the dead body after digging out earth in a room of the house of the deceased in order to conceal the evidence of murder. Sarat Chandra Patra, brother of the appellant was also placed on trial on a charge u/S. 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. There were only two eye-witnesses namely P.W. 3 and P.W. 4 who are the daughter and son respectively of the deceased, Rathia Patra. They, however, became hostile and did not support the prosecution case. The prosecution, however, relied on the judicial confession of the appellant, exhibit 15 recorded by a 1st Class Magistrate in order to bring home the guilt of the accused appellant. The learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted all the three persons including the appellant of the said charges holding that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused Manguli or Nilamoni Patra caused the death of Rathia Patra and it was therefore, held that Manguli and Nilamoni did not commit the offence of murder u/S. 302, I.P.C. read with Section 34, I.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge further held that though the dead body was brought out after removing the earth from the bedroom of the deceased, Rathia Patra on the information given by the appellant, there was no evidence to prove that the dead body was buried by the appellant, Manguli in order to conceal the evidence of murder. It was also held by referring to the evidence of P.W. 5. the doctor who conducted the post-mortem over the dead body and who stated that there was only one cut injury which was simple, that the death of the deceased was not homicidal and all the accused persons were acquitted. Against this order of acquittal, Criminal Appeal No. 57 of 1975 was filed by the State in the High Court of Orissa. On July 11, 1978 the High Court on a consideration of the circumstances especially the judicial confession (exhibit 15) made by the accused before a lst Class Magistrate held that the offence of committing murder by the appellant was proved as the confession was inculpatory in nature. It was also held that in view of the confessional statement that the accused snatched the axe from the deceased while he was chasing to kill her, there was no apprehension of safety of the accused and the plea of self-defence in giving the fatal blows on the person of the accused was not available to the accused Manguli and the finding of the Trial Court to that effect was erroneous. The confessional statement was held to be correct inasmuch as the dead body was recovered from the bedroom of the deceased after removing the earth on the information of the appellant. The Court also found that the dead body was recovered after 10 days and as it was in a highly decomposed state the marks of injury were not clearly visible. In such circumstances the post-mortem report was not relevant. The High Court, therefore, held that the crime of murder was proved against the appellant and she was convicted u/S. 302 of the Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. She was also convicted u/S. 201 of the Indian Penal Code but no separate sentence was imposed on this account.
It is against this order that instant appeal has been filed. In this appeal two contentions have been advanced on behalf of the appellant. It was strenuously contended that in the first place the evidence of doctor P.W. 5 who held the post-mortem on the dead body states about only one injury which was simple. This medical evidence is contrary to the judicial confession (exhibit 15) recorded by the 1st Class Magistrate wherein it has been stated that four strokes were given by axe on the head of the deceased by the appellant, Manguli. So the confessional statement should not be relied upon in coming to a finding that the appellant committed murder of her husband, Rathia Patra, since deceased. It should be held that the death of Rathia Patra was not homicidal. It was secondly urged before us that considering this aspect of the case the appellant should not be convicted u/s. 302, I.P.C. and she should be convicted at best u/s. 304, (Part II) I.P.C. The sentence should be modified accordingly.
4. These submissions in our considered opinion are devoid of any merit. The confessional statement recorded by the 1st Class Magistrate has been rightly held to be correct inasmuch as in accordance with the statement, the dead body was recovered from a room of the deceaseds house after removing the earth on the pointing out of place by the appellant where the corpse was buried by the appellant herself. This dead body was recovered in the presence of P.W. 6, who is the Tehsildar. Secondly, the dead body was in a highly decomposed state as it was recovered after 10 days from the date of dumping the dead body under earth and as such the injuries on the dead body were not clearly visible and it is not possible for the doctor, P.W. 5 who held the post-mortem examination to see all the injuries on the person of the deceased The evidence of the doctor was not very relevant in this connection as has been held by the High Court. Moreover, the confession made by the appellant incriminating herself clearly proved that the crime was committed by her. In such circumstances, the finding of the High Court convicting the appellant u/S. 302, I.P.C. is unexceptionable and the sentence of imprisonment for life was property imposed on her. We do hope and expect that in consideration of the fact that the appellant is in jail for about 10 years and she was also under custody as an under-trial prisoner for some period, the State will consider the question of her premature release under the provisions of the Jail Manual if any such application is made by the accused appellant. The appeal is therefore, dismissed
Appeal dismissed.
For Citation : AIR 1989 SC 483