Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, JJ.
Raju Kumar Yadav S/o Dhaneshwar Yadav @ Dhanesar Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Criminal Appeal (DB) Nos. 702, 719, 743 of 2018
Decided On : 30-01-2024
POCSO Act - Criminal Conviction - Section 374(2) of CrPC, Section 302/34 IPC, Section 201 IPC, Section 6 of POCSO Act - The court discussed the admissibility of confessional statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, emphasizing the necessity of independent witnesses during the recording of such statements. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a proper chain of evidence linking the appellants to the crime, particularly due to the lack of a panchnama and independent witness presence during the confession. This led to the conclusion that the convictions were not substantiated by adequate evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the kidnapping and murder of a minor girl under various sections of the IPC and the POCSO Act. The case arose from a complaint by the victim's grandmother, leading to the recovery of the victim's body based on a confessional statement made by one of the appellants, Jitendra Chaudhary. The prosecution's case relied heavily on this confession and the circumstances surrounding the recovery of the body.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the trial court had erred in convicting the appellants based primarily on the confessional statement of Jitendra Chaudhary, which was not admissible against the co-accused. The lack of independent witnesses during the confession and the absence of a panchnama at the recovery site were critical flaws in the prosecution's case.
Issues: Whether the confessional statement of Jitendra Chaudhary was admissible against the other appellants, and whether the prosecution established a sufficient chain of evidence to support the convictions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that confessions made in police custody are generally inadmissible unless they lead to the discovery of facts, and that the prosecution must establish a clear and credible chain of evidence linking the accused to the crime. The absence of independent witnesses and proper documentation undermined the prosecution's case.
Final Decision: The appeals were allowed, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were ordered to be released from custody.
JUDGMENT :
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
1. These appeals have been preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, putting to challenge the impugned judgment of conviction dated 17.04.2018 and the order of sentence dated 24.04.2018, passed by learned 1st Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (POCSO Act), Gaya, arising out of Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 54 of 2014, POCSO Case No. 12 of 2015, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 702 of 2018 | ||||
| Appellant | Penal Provision | Sentence | ||
| Imprisonment | Fine (Rs.) | In default of fine | ||
| Raju Kumar Yadav | Under Section 302/34 of the IPC | R.I. for life | 25,000/- | R.I. for two years |
| Under Section 201/34 | R.I. for seven years | 10,000/- | R.I. for one year
| |
| Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act | R.I. for life | 25,000/- | R.I. for two years | |
| Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 719 of 2018 | ||||
| Dharmendra Kumar | Under Section 302/34 of the IPC | R.I. for life | 25,000/- | R.I. for two years |
| Under Section 201/34 | R.I. for seven years | 10,000/- | R.I. for one year | |
| Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act | R.I. for life | 25,000/- | R.I. for two years | |
| Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 743 of 2018 | ||||
| Jitendra Chaudhary @ Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary | Under Section 302/34 of the IPC | R.I. for life | 25,000/- | R.I. for two years |
| Under Section 201/34 | R.I. for seven years | 10,000/- | R.I. for one year | |
| Under Section 6 of the POCSO Act | R.I. for life | 25,000/- | R.I. for two years | |
2. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
3. An information given by the maternal grandmother of the victim (PW-7) through a communication addressed to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gaya dated 26.06.2014, led to registration of Buniyadganj P.S. Case No. 54 of 2014, disclosing commission of offence punishable under Section 363 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the said information, on 22.06.2014, the victim, a minor girl, was found missing from her house and did not return till late in the night. On 23.06.2014, she got a sanha registered vide sanha No. 342 in Buniyadganj Police Station regarding the missing of the victim. She suspected that these appellants, Jitendra Chaudhary, Raju Kumar Yadav and Dharmendra Kumar had in a conspiracy kidnapped the victim and killed her. The reason behind such suspicion was previous disputes and threats issued by them. It is the prosecution’s case that during the course of investigation, the confessional statement of the appellant Jitendra Chaudhary @ Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary was recorded on 28.06.2014, leading to recovery of the dead body of the deceased on the same date from a drain adjacent to railway line. The dead body of the victim was identified by the informant. Consequent upon the recovery of the dead body of the deceased in the background of the confessional statement made by the appellant Jitendra Chaudhary @ Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary, Sections 376 and 201 of the IPC were added in the FIR. An inquest report was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. It is worthwhile mentioning that in his confessional statement (Ext. 8) the appellant Jitendra Chaudhary @ Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary is said to have disclosed that he had illicit relationship with the victim’s aunt (PW-5). The victim had once witnessed both of them in compromising position. Being afraid that the victim might disclose about their relationship, the appellant Jitendra Chaudhary @ Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary called her in a factory where all these appellants worked. The appellant Jitendra Chaudhary @ Jitendra Kumar Chaudhary and other two appellants subjected the victim to sexual intercourse because of which she had become unconscious. They later killed the deceased, packed the dead body in a plastic bag and threw the dead body of the deceased in the drain. He also , said to have, disclosed that after committing the crime, he and his accompli
Confessions made in police custody are inadmissible unless recorded in the presence of independent witnesses and linked to the discovery of evidence, highlighting the necessity for proper procedural ....
Confessions made voluntarily and without pressure under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. are admissible as evidence.
The admissibility of a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the mandatory provision of inflicting a fine under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Provisions of Section 164 Cr.P.C must be complied with not only in form, but in essence.
Compliance with the mandatory requirements for recording a confessional statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. and the need for adequate evidence to establish charges under the Indian Penal Code.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
