S.S. Sharma, J.
1. The appellant by this appeal challenges her conviction under Section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for life which has been awarded to her by First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 133 of 1980.
2. Deceased Kunjami Chetu was the husband of the appellant. The prosecution case was that in the night of 30.8.1979 at about 10.00 to 11.00 P.M. deceased who was drunk had beat his wife i.e. the appellant. It is alleged that the deceased even earlier had been beating the appellant. The appellant, being fed up with all that treatment, on that night inflicted two blows by some lathi, which, resulted in his death. Next morning, the appellant informed deceased's brother Kunjami Baman (P. W. 1). A Panchayat was held in which the appellant was also summoned. It is said that in that Panchayat, the appellant had stated that, her husband in a drunken state used to beat her everyday and so she while her husband was asleep assaulted him.
3. It was on 1.9.1979 that a report Ex. P. 1 was lodged by Kunjami Baman (P.W. 1) in the Police Station. Oyami Joga (P.W. 2) had also accompanied Kunjami Baman (P.W. 1) to the Police Station and had interpreted Kunjami Baman's report in Hindi. That report was recorded by Head Constable Chandra Bhan Mishra (P.W. 8). Head Constable Bhagwan Singh (P.W. 5) had gone to the spot. After holding the inquest the dead body of Kunjami Chetu was sent for post-mortem examination. A Dhoti and wooden Khotla were seized vide memorandums Ex. P. 5 and Ex. P. 6 respectively.
4. Dr. Agarwal (P.W. 9) performed the post-mortem over the dead body of Kunjami Chetu. He found two lacerated wounds one oh the right parietal and the other on the left parietal. Fracture of occipital bone was also noticed. There also were two contusions on the chest, the locations of which have been described by the witness. In his opinion, coma due to intra-cranial haemorrhage was the cause of death. Injury No. 1 as described by him was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and injury No. 2 also was grievous.
5. Kunjami Baman (P.W. 1) did not support the prosecution. He denied that the appellant had told him that she had killed her husband. When the FIR (Ex P. 1) was read over to him he denied to have made that report. His evidence is, therefore, of no assistance to the prosecution.
6. Conviction of the appellant rests mainly on the extra-judicial confession allegedly made by her in the Panchayat. Prosecution had examined Oyami Jega (P.W. 2) and Oyami Deva (P.W. 3) to prove that extra-judicial confession. These witnesses have stated above the appellant having admitted to have assaulted her husband. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Maghar Singh v. State of Punjab : AIR1975SC1320 relying on an earlier decision in Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindh Pra. : 1954CriLJ910 , have observed that 'If the Court believes the witnesses before whom the confession is made and it is satisfied that the confession was voluntary, then in such a case conviction can be founded on such evidence alone.' Therefore, Court has also to be satisfied about the voluntaries of that extra-judicial confession. It has come in the cross-examination of Oyami joga (P.W. 2) that the appellant had made the confession as otherwise the police would cause harassment. Oyami Deva (P.W. 3) made an improvement on that fact by denying that part of the appellant's statement. The voluntaries of the appellant's statement before the Panchayat thus becomes doubtful and so has to be excluded.
7. The find of human blood-stains on the wood and Dhoti produced by the appellant in itself is insufficient in the circumstances to find the appellant guilty for murder. The appellant cannot be held guilty merely because she takes up a false plea for the injuries as have been found on the deceased. The conviction of the appellant cannot, therefore, be upheld and she is entitled to benefit of doubt.
8. Consequently, this appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. The appellant is on bail. Her bail bonds are discharged and she need not surrender to them.