Manmohan Pal vs Union Territory of Chandigarh

M.R. Sharma, J.

(Oral) Manmohan Pal appellant is stated to have committed the murder of his wife Raj Bala on night intervening March 29 and 30, 1983. Brahm Sarup P.W. 3 was a heart patient. He was advised by a Socialist working in the P.G.I. Chandigarh, that whenever he felt uneasy he should take a walk, In accordance with this advice,he came out of his house and was having a walk in Dadu Majra Colony at 1.30 A.M. on 29.3.1983. Suddenly he heard a noise from the side of the house of the house of the. appellant. He went there and saw Raj, Bala deceased lying dead in a pool of blood. He accordingly wrote Ruqa Ex. PG which he intended to send to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Sector 39, Chandigarh, when he met Constable Jaspal Singh P.W. 10 whom he entrusted this ruqa. On the basis of this ruqa, first information report Ex. PA was lodged at the aforementioned Police Station at 2 A.M. on 30 3.1983. A.S.I. Nanha Ram P.W. 8 reached the spot at 4 A.M. and started investigation. The appellant is said to have approached''. Rachhpal Singh P.W. 12 at 5 30 A.M. Suresh Pal P.W.4 happened to'' be present there. The appellant made an extrajudicial confession before these two persons by stating that h had murdered his wife because he suspected her to be of loose moral character. Rachhpal Singh P.W. 12 produced the appellant before A.S.I. Nanha Ram P.W. 8 at 6.00 A.M. It is not disputed that the deceased did die of a violent death

At the trial, the prosecution relied upon the statement of Brahm Sarup P.W. 3. the first informant, Suresh Pal P.W. 4 and Rachhpal Singh P.W. 12 before whom the appellant is said have made an extrajudicial confession and Chander Kanta P.W. 6, who used to work in the same concern in which the deceased was employed and before whom the deceased had mentioned that her husband suspected her to be of loose moral character. The learned trial Judge accepted this evidence for convicting the appellant under section 302 I. P C. and sentencing him to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs. 3000/. In default or payment of fine. he was ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months.

In this appeal by the convict, we have gone through the evidence with the help of the learned counsel.

There is no eyewitness of the occurrence. The case of the prosecution by and large rests upon the socalled extrajudicial confession made by the appellant before Rachhpal Singh P W. 12. This witness has admitted that his house was at a distance of 2.1 furlongs from the house of the appellant. The socalled confession was made to him after the police had appeared on the scene. Besides, Rachhpal Singh P.W. 12 has admitted that he was involved in a rape case and had been granted bail. According to him, Suresh Pal P.W. 4 paid a visit to him because the latter had agreed to supply him some furniture and he wanted to collect earnest money in the early hours of the'' morning. This explanation does not appear in his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer. We are accordingly of the view that in the circumstances of this case the learned trial Judge should not have relied upon the oral extrajudicial confession said to have been made by the appellant.

The evidence of Chander Kanta P.W, 6 at best gives an indication of motive on the part of the appellant to commit this crime but in the absence of other evidence, we are unable to affirm his conviction. This appeal is accordingly allowed and the appellant is acquitted of the charge, The fine, if already paid, shall he returned to him.

Appeal allowed