The use of inadmissible evidence, particularly confessions made to police officers, is grounds for overturning a conviction under criminal law.

JUDGMENT :

BIBEK CHAUDHURI, J.

This is an appeal under Section 374 (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter described as 'CrPC' in short) filed by the convict assailing the judgment of conviction dated 11^th April 2018 and the order of sentence dated 17^th April 2018 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge III^rd Court, Araria in Sessions Trial No. 203 of 2017 arising out of Araria P.S. Case No. 856 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the appellant was convicted under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/-, in default of non payment of fine further simple imprisonment of one year and he was further convicted for committing offence under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 10,000/- only, in default S.I. for further period of three months. Substantive sentence of R.I. was directed to run concurrently.

2. It is needless to say that the appellant has been in custody approximately for more than 7 years while suffering sentence.

3. We are not constrained to note that this case is a classic example of conviction upon inadmissible evidence by the learned trial Judge. Subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the appellant preferred a series of applications for suspension of sentence and bail, but his prayer was constantly rejected by this Court, also relying on inadmissible evidence.

4. Let us now describe the factual aspect of the incident. One Shambhu Dharkar, a village Chowkidar of Azam Nagar, Kushimar village under the police station and district Araria received an information on 23.12.2016 at about 08:30 AM that dead body of one unknown person was kept on the southern side of village Diwari Fatak Bridge in a bamboo groove of one Vishundev Yadav. In order to work out the said information, the above-named chowkidar went to the said spot. He found that police party also reached the spot. He found one unknown dead body with blackish ligature mark around the neck and bleeding from the left ear. Seeing the dead body, the chowkidar approximately ascertained his age around 35 years. He was wearing a black jacket, pink colored Shirt, a blue colored warm vest, red colored T-shirt, white colored vest and blue colored jeans full pant. There was a black thread on his neck with a locket inscribed thereon 786 and 92. He also found a blank cartridge of 315 bore in one of his pocket. Local people assembled there. Nobody could identify him. It seemed to the said chowkidar that the deceased was murdered at some other place and his dead body was tied with a Simul tree by a rope. A belt was tied around his neck.

5. One Ashok Kumar Singh, Sub-inspector of police recorded the statement of the said Shambhu Dharkar and treated the same as FIR. On the basis of the said statement, duly signed by Shambhu Dharkar, the SHO of Araria police station registered FIR Case No. 856 of 2016 dated 23^rd December 2016 under Section 302/301 IPC against unknown miscreants and entrusted Sub-Inspector King Kundan to investigate into the case.

6. The I.O., on completion of the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 302/34, 201/34, and 120(B) of the IPC against Vijay Kumar Yadav @ Vivek Yadav @ Golu (hereinafter described as ‘Golu’).

7. After filing of the charge-sheet, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The learned Principal Sessions Judge transferred the case record to the Court of Learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Araria for trial and disposal. The learned trial j