Confession of Co-Accused Insufficient for Conviction Without Corroboration: Gauhati High Court Acquits Two in Kidnapping-Murder Case

Gauhati HC Acquits Two in 2004 Kidnapping-Murder, Cites Lack of Corroboration for Co-Accused's Confession

GUWAHATI: The Gauhati High Court has acquitted two individuals, Md Jamaluddin Majumdar and Khagendra Chakma , in a two-decade-old case of kidnapping for ransom and murder, ruling that a conviction cannot be sustained solely on the retracted confession of a co-accused without independent corroboration. A Division Bench of Justices S.K. Medhi and Kakheto Sema , while upholding the life sentences of two other convicts, Sahadev Chakma and Rupdhan Chakma , emphasized the need for a higher standard of proof when relying on accomplice evidence.

The court gave the benefit of doubt to Majumdar and Chakma, setting aside their convictions by the trial court.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to March 17, 2004, when businessman Pratul Chandra Dev was abducted along with his driver and clerk by armed assailants. While the driver and clerk were later released, Dev was held for a ransom demand that started at Rs. 50 lakhs. A part of the negotiated ransom was paid, but Dev was never released.

The investigation, initially handled by the state police, was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) in 2005 following a Public Interest Litigation. The CBI's probe led to the recovery of skeletal remains, identified as Dev's through a pacemaker and other evidence, and the arrest of several individuals. The trial court convicted the appellants, sentencing them to life imprisonment under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including 120B (criminal conspiracy), 364A (kidnapping for ransom), and 302 (murder).

---

Arguments Before the High Court

Counsel for the Acquitted Appellants ( Majumdar and Khagendra ): The primary argument was that the prosecution's case against them was built almost entirely on the confessional statements of co-accused individuals, which were later retracted. The defense relied heavily on the Constitution Bench judgment in Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1964 SC 1184 ) , arguing that a co-accused's confession is weak evidence and can only be used to lend assurance to other substantive evidence, not as the foundation for a conviction. They pointed out that key prosecution witnesses, including those declared hostile, did not implicate them directly or conclusively.

Counsel for the Convicted Appellants (Sahadev and Rupdhan): Arguments were made questioning the integrity of the forensic evidence, particularly the DNA match, and the validity of the Test Identification Parades (TIPs). They also contended that the confessional statements were made under duress and were too vague to be reliable.

CBI's Submissions: The CBI, represented by its Special Public Prosecutor, argued that the case was proven through a combination of direct and circumstantial evidence. They cited eyewitness testimonies from the surviving victims of the abduction, who had identified the accused. The CBI maintained that the confessional statements, disclosure statements leading to recoveries, and the testimony of hostile witnesses (in parts that supported the prosecution) formed a complete chain of circumstances proving the guilt of all accused.

---

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

The High Court meticulously dissected the evidence against each appellant.

On Acquittal of Majumdar and Khagendra : The Bench found that the evidence against these two appellants was critically weak. The court noted that key witnesses (PW14, PW15, PW29) who were meant to establish a motive of business rivalry had turned hostile and their testimonies were not conclusive. This left the prosecution with only the retracted confessions of co-accused.

Applying the principles laid down in Haricharan Kurmi , the court observed:

> "In dealing with a case against an accused-person, the Court cannot start with the confession of co-accused person but it must begin with other evidence adduced by the prosecution... confession can only be used to lend assurance to other evidence against a co-accused."

Finding no independent material evidence to corroborate the confessional statements against Majumdar and Khagendra , the court held their conviction to be unsustainable.

On Upholding Conviction of Sahadev and Rupdhan: In contrast, the court found that the case against Sahadev Chakma and Rupdhan Chakma was established by strong, direct evidence. The Bench highlighted the unimpeached testimonies of eyewitnesses who were abducted along with the deceased.

> "We have, however observed that the said appellant has been clearly implicated by PW1 and PW4 who are eye-witnesses by deposing that the appellant-Rupdhan had taken part in the kidnapping in which, they were themselves victims and they had also identified the present appellant... Therefore, even if the disclosure statement made and the confession by the appellant are overlooked, the evidence of the PW1, PW3 and PW4, who appear to be trustworthy, would remain."

The court concluded that the direct identification by multiple eyewitnesses, who had no reason to falsely implicate them, was sufficient to uphold their conviction, irrespective of the challenges to the confessional and forensic evidence.

---

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the appeals of Md Jamaluddin Majumdar and Khagendra Chakma , acquitting them of all charges. The appeals of Sahadev Chakma and Rupdhan Chakma were dismissed, and their life imprisonment sentences were confirmed.