IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.
Mohammad Eliyas S/o Mohammad Shabir - Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh, Chhattisgarh -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1561, 1647 of 2015, 532 of 2016
Decided On : 11-10-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2), 313, 293(1), 437A – Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302, 34, 364, 201 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 30, 27 - Murder Offence – Appeal against Conviction - Strangulated with a Plastic Rope - Accused persons, in common intention of causing death, abducted him and strangulated him with a plastic rope on account of which he succumbed to death - Conviction cannot be rested only on confessional statement of co-accused with aid of Section 30 of Evidence Act, as it requires corroboration from other evidence as well either ocular or circumstantial. [Para 50]
Finding of the Court :
Trial Court has held three appellants/accused persons A-2), (A-3) and (A-4) guilty for offences merely on basis of memorandum statement of appellant/co-accused (A-l) - No other evidence, ocular or circumstantial, has been established on record to hold them guilty except memorandum statement of (A-l) whereas memorandum statement of co-accused has to be used only as a corroborative piece of evidence - In that view of matter, Court is of considered opinion that trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting co-accused persons (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4) with aid of Section 30 of Evidence Act relying upon memorandum statement of (A-1) vide Ex. P/4 - Accordingly, Court is unable to uphold conviction of appellants/accused persons (A-2), (A-3) and (A-4) and Court hereby set aside impugned judgment so far as it relates to these three appellants/ accused persons and they are acquitted of charges levelled against them - Conviction cannot be rested only on confessional statement of co-accused with aid of Section 30 of Evidence Act, as it requires corroboration from other evidence as well either ocular or circumstantial.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Since all of these criminal appeals have arisen out impugned judgment dated 07/11/2014 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Sarangarh, Distt. Raigarh in Sessions Trial No. 34/2014, therefore, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 1561/2015 namely Mohammad Eliyas (A-2) and Satish Bareth (A-4); the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1647/2015 namely Monu Thawait (A-3); and the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 532/2016 namely Mohammad Bilal (A-1); all have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) of CrPC calling in question the validity, legality and correctness of the judgment impugned whereby each of them has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default to pay fine further R.I. for one year; under Section 364/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in default to pay fine further R.I. for six months; and under Section 201/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years with fine of Rs. 500/- in default to pay fine, further R.I. for six months.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 28-29/08/2014 within the ambit of Police Station Sarangarh, the appellants/accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention of causing death of Tiharu Patel, abducted him and strangulated him with a plastic rope on account of which he succumbed to death and thereafter, in order to screen themselves from the offence, drowned the dead body of the deceased in Heerakund Dam and threw the shirt worn by him at the time of the incident on the road, and thereby, committed the aforesaid offences.
4. Further case of the prosecution is that on 29/08/2014, Nawdhalal Patel (P.W.-1) lodged a report at Police Station Sarangarh that his younger brother Tiharu Patel used to work at Abbas Ali Petrol Pump, Sarangarh and he had married Gauri Patel (P.W.-9) prior to 8-10 years from the incident but they had no issue. Tiharu Patel owned a Bolero bearing No. CG-13-U-2813 and he had kept Mohammad Bilal (A-1) as a driver for the said vehicle for the past three years, who had developed illicit relationship with the wife of Tiharu Patel namely Gauri Patel (P.W.-9) on account of which dispute arose between Mohammad Bilal (A-1), Tiharu Patel (deceased) and his wife Gauri Patel (P.W.-9) frequently and it was known by the whole family of the deceased. On 29/08/2014, Tiharu Patel (deceased) had gone to work in the Petrol Pump but he did not return home at night. When Nawdhalal Patel (P.W.-1) enquired at the Petrol Pump, he was told that his brother Tiharu Patel had returned to go home after completing his work at 8 PM and thereafter, Nawdhalal Patel (P.W.-1) lodged FIR for offence punishable under Section 364 of IPC vide Ex. P/1 and pursuant thereof, the wheels of investigation started running.
5. During the course of the investigation, it was found that prior to 5-6 months of the incident, Gauri Patel (P.W.-9), wife of deceased, had given birth to a daughter and on the pretext of the daughter being born out of the illicit relationship between Mohammad Bilal (A-1) and Gauri Patel (P.W.-9) which was going on for two years, dispute arose between the appellant/accused Mohammad Bilal (A-1) and the deceased and on that account, on 28/08/2014 at about 08:00 PM, Mohammad Bilal (A-1) along with the three co-accused persons, with the intention of causing death of Tiharu Patel, took him to Mohan Dhaba owned by Mohanlal Chauhan (P.W.-8) on the pretext of giving party and administered sleeping pills in the cold drink/liqour consumed by deceased Tiharu Patel and when he became unconscious, all the four accused persons took him to Heerakund Dam in his Bolero and in the intervening night of 28-29/08/2014, strangulated him with plastic rope and thereafter, drowned his dead
Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Jaspal Singh
Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
State v. Nalini, (1999) 5 SCC 253
Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar
Ningappa yallappa Hosamani and others v. State of Karnataka and others
Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra
Harijan Megha Jesha v. State of Gujarat
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State (Delhi Administration) v. Dharampal
State of Punjab v. Swaran Singh
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and another
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroborative evidence to establish guilt, the limitations of the memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the inadmissib....
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another unless tried jointly; conviction based solely on such confessions violates evidentiary standards.
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
The admissibility of information provided by the accused while in police custody, and the application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in determining the evidentiary value of the disclosure statemen....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.