Gauhati High Court Alters Murder Conviction to Culpable Homicide, Citing Grave Provocation and Retracted Confession

Guwahati, Assam – The Gauhati High Court has modified a trial court's murder conviction, holding that an act committed under "grave and sudden provocation" constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In a significant ruling, a bench of Justice Michael Zothankhuma and Justice Anjan Moni Kalita set aside the life imprisonment sentences for two of the three appellants, acquitting one entirely and convicting the main accused under Section 304 Part-I of the IPC. The Court underscored that convictions cannot be based on hearsay evidence and that a retracted confession, if found voluntary and corroborated, can be a valid basis for conviction.

Background of the Case

The appeal was filed by Awadesh Chouhan (appellant no.1), Munna Khan (appellant no.2), and Saturi Chouhan (appellant no.3) against a 2022 judgment by the Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong. The trial court had convicted all three for murder (Section 302 IPC) and causing the disappearance of evidence (Section 201 IPC), sentencing them to life imprisonment.

The case dates back to February 2007, when Rakesh Chouhan went missing and was later found dead in a pond, with a muffler tied around his neck suggesting strangulation. An FIR named seven suspects, including the three appellants. After investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet only against the three appellants, who were subsequently convicted.

Arguments Before the High Court

• Appellants' Counsel, Mr. A.I. Uddin , argued that the trial court's conviction was flawed as it relied heavily on hearsay evidence from prosecution witnesses (PW-5 and PW-9). These witnesses testified about what others, who were never produced in court, had allegedly told them. The defense contended that such testimony is inadmissible. Furthermore, the conviction was based on a confessional statement by Awadesh Chouhan, which he later retracted, claiming it was made under police duress. The counsel argued that this retracted confession could not implicate the other two co-accused and that, for Awadesh, the act was a result of grave and sudden provocation, as he claimed to have found the deceased molesting his sister.

• State's Counsel, Ms. B. Bhuyan , countered that a retracted confession can be the basis for a conviction if the court is satisfied it was voluntary and true. She highlighted that the confession was made in 2007 but retracted only in 2022—a delay of over 15 years—suggesting the retraction was an afterthought. She argued that the evidence of PW-5 and PW-9, combined with the confession, proved the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

The High Court meticulously dissected the evidence, arriving at several crucial conclusions.

On Hearsay Evidence: The Court found that the testimonies of PW-5 and PW-9 were entirely based on hearsay. Key individuals mentioned by these witnesses—such as the sister of appellant no.1 and an "old lady" neighbor who allegedly saw the accused with the deceased—were never examined as witnesses. The Court held that such uncorroborated, second-hand accounts could not form the basis for a conviction.

"The consequence of the above can only mean that the testimony of PW-5 was hearsay evidence and could not be the basis for conviction of the appellants."

On the Retracted Confession: The Court deemed the confessional statement of Awadesh Chouhan to be voluntary and truthful, despite its retraction. The 15-year delay in retracting the statement was a critical factor. However, the Court stressed that such a confession requires corroboration.

"We are of the view that the reason given by the appellant no.1 for retracting the Confessional Statement appears to be an afterthought... Accordingly, though the appellant no.1 has retracted his Confessional Statement, we are of the view that the retracted confessional statement can be considered for conviction of an accused, as we consider the same to be truthful and voluntary."

The corroboration was found in the fact that Awadesh Chouhan and Munna Khan led the police to the pond and recovered the deceased's body, which aligned with the details in the confession.

On Grave and Sudden Provocation: Accepting the voluntary nature of the confession, the Court also accepted its contents, wherein Awadesh Chouhan stated he killed the deceased after finding him molesting his sister. This, the bench ruled, fell under Exception 1 to Section 300 of the IPC .

"On considering the fact that the appellant no.1 had seen the deceased trying to molest his sister, due to which he apparently acted on the spur of the moment... we are of the view that the appellant had acted due to a grave and sudden provocation on the part of the deceased, which would attract Exception 1 (one) to section 300 IPC."

This finding was pivotal in reducing the charge from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Final Judgment and Sentences

Based on its reasoning, the Gauhati High Court delivered a nuanced verdict:

• Awadesh Chouhan (Appellant No. 1): His conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) was set aside. He was convicted under Section 304 Part-I IPC (culpable homicide not amounting to murder) and sentenced to 8 years of rigorous imprisonment. His conviction under Section 201 IPC for hiding the body was upheld.

• Munna Khan (Appellant No. 2): The Court found the confession only implicated him in helping dispose of the body. He was acquitted of the murder charge (Section 302 IPC), but his conviction and sentence under Section 201 IPC were upheld.

• Saturi Chouhan (Appellant No. 3): The Court found no evidence, even in the retracted confession, linking him to the crime. He was acquitted of all charges.

The appeal was thus partially allowed, modifying the trial court's judgment to reflect the specific roles and culpability of each accused based on legally admissible and corroborated evidence.