http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  50 of 2002

PETITIONER: State of Madhya Pradesh

RESPONDENT: Basodi

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/08/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P.P. NAOLEKAR

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

        1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a  Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur  directing acquittal of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as  the ’accused’) by setting aside the judgment of learned Second  Additional Sessions Judge, Chhindwara who had convicted the  accused-respondent for offence punishable under Section 302  of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ’IPC’) and Section  27 of the Arms Act, 1959 (in short the ’Arms Act’). Life  imprisonment and five years rigorous imprisonment  respectively were awarded. Accused was charged for having  committed the murder of his nephew Mangalu (hereinafter  referred to as the ’deceased’).

2.      Background facts in a nutshell are as under:

On 19.8.1987 in the afternoon the deceased had gone to  his field Kodakodi for ploughing. The respondent who  happened to be uncle of deceased dissuaded the deceased  from ploughing the field. But the deceased continued to  plough the field. The respondent fired at the deceased from his  muzzle loading gun. The deceased after sustaining the injury  fell on the ground. The respondent rushed to his village and  narrated about the incident to Ramprasad (PW-3), Maresha  (PW-8) and other villagers that he had shot the deceased,  whereupon the complainant Jangalu (PW-1) and his father  Bhagan Singh (PW-5), Doulot (PW-6) and Maresha (PW-8) went  to the field and saw the deceased lying injured. When the  deceased was being brought to his house he died on the way.  The complainant Jangalu along with others went to the police  station and lodged FIR (Ex.P-10) on 21-8-1987 and  investigation proceeded. On the memorandum of the  respondent (Ex.P-4) muzzle loading gun was recovered and  seized vide Ex.P-5. The police also seized blood stained clothes  of the respondent and sent the seized articles to the FSL,  Sagar for chemical examination and report.

       After receipt of the report of the chemical examiner (Ex.P- 11) and completing the investigation, charge-sheet was  submitted. The cognizance of the offence was accordingly  taken and the case was committed to the Court of sessions for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

trial.

The prosecution examined in all ten witnesses at the  trial.

       The defence was of false implication on account of the  family feud to the land dispute.         The trial Court disbelieved the claim of recovery of gun.  It, however, held that the extra-judicial confession before  complainant Jangalu (PW-1), Ramprasad (PW-3) and Maresha  (PW-8) was clearly acceptable and accordingly convicted the  accused as afore-stated.  

3.      Being aggrieved, the accused preferred an appeal before  the High Court. Primary stand before the High Court was that  the so called extra judicial confession was not believable. The  prosecution version is totally inconsistent. No explanation has  been offered for the delay in lodging the First Information  Report. The High Court found that the evidence relating to  extra judicial confession is clearly unacceptable and  accordingly directed acquittal as noted above.  

4.      In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant-State submitted that the High Court has not  indicated any basis or reason for discarding the extra judicial  confession.

5.      Learned counsel for the accused-respondent supported  the judgment of acquittal.  

6.      It is to be noted that the occurrence took place on  19.8.1987 at about 4.00 p.m. The FIR was lodged on  21.8.1987. From the evidence of PW-8 it appears that the  accused purportedly came and told him about having shot his  nephew i.e. the deceased. He advised the accused to go to the  Kotwar of Almod. Ram Prasad (PW-3) is the son of Village  Kotwar. PW-1 also stated that when the accused was being  taken by him, PW-3 and PW-8 to the Police Station, the  accused again confessed having killed the deceased.   According to the version of PW-3 the distance between the  place of occurrence and his house is about 10 K.M. and it  takes about two hours to reach his place. He has stated that  the accused reached him at about 4.00 p.m. According to the  FIR and the version of PW-1 and PW-8, the occurrence took  place at 4.00 p.m. and thereafter PW-8 had advised the  accused to go to the Kotwar of Almod. This statement,  therefore, is contradictory in the sense that if accused had  made any confession before PW-3 at about 4.00 p.m. after  travelling the distance from the house of PW-8, the incidence  could not have taken place at about 4.00 p.m. as claimed by  PW-1 and PW-3. According to PW-3’s evidence the accused  was not carrying weapon i.e. the gun with him when he had  gone to the house of PW-3. PW-3 claimed that he brought  accused with him to the village where PW-1, PW-8 and others  were present.  He then asked the accused to go home and next  day they started for the police station. Admittedly, the FIR was  lodged on 21.8.1987 at about 1.00 p.m. No explanation  whatsoever has been offered for the delayed presentation of  the FIR. It was the specific stand of the prosecution that PWs.  1, 3 and 8 had taken the accused with them to the police  station where the gun was seized from the accused. This  version gets totally discredited in view of what the police  official (PW-10) stated.  According to him, the statement of the  accused was recorded when he was found after search and the  accused was not before him when the FIR was lodged. He

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

alongwith some other persons reached Varud village, the place  of occurrence on 22.8.1987. The accused was found after  covering the village on 24.8.1987. Nothing more need be stated  to show that the so called extra-judicial confession is a myth  and the prosecution version lacks credibility and has been  rightly discarded by the High Court. The order of acquittal  passed by the High Court does not suffer from any infirmity to  warrant interference.   

7.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed.