Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ., ARVIND KUMAR VERMA, J.
Karan Suryavanshi, Son of Mahettar @ Khuboo Suryavanshi – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.611 of 2023, Criminal Appeal No.1389 of 2023
Criminal Appeal No.503 of 2023
Decided on : 07-02-2024
Criminal Appeals - Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC - Evidence Act - [Section 302/34 IPC, Section 27 of the Evidence Act] - The court affirmed the finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature based on medical evidence. However, it held that the confessional statements of the appellants were inadmissible under Section 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act, and no other incriminating evidence was available to convict the appellants. Therefore, the appeals were allowed, and the appellants were acquitted.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC based on the prosecution's evidence, including memorandum statements and recovery of clothes. The appellants denied guilt and entered into a defense.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature but held that the confessional statements of the appellants were inadmissible under the Evidence Act. It concluded that no other incriminating evidence was available to convict the appellants.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellants' conviction under Section 302/34 of the IPC was sustainable based on the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the confessional statements of the appellants were inadmissible under Section 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act, and no other incriminating evidence was available to convict them.
Final Decision: The criminal appeals filed on behalf of the appellants were allowed, and the impugned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellants was set aside. The appellants were acquitted of the charge and directed to file personal bond and sureties.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
1. Since the aforesaid three criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, in Sessions Case No.85/2021, they were clubbed & heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellants-Karan Suryavanshi, Rakesh Rohidas and Raja Yadav @ Rajveer have preferred these three criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 12.01.2023 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa, in Sessions Case No.85/2021, by which they have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 7.6.2021 at 8.50 A.M. Chaitram Suryavanshi (PW-2) informed the Police Station Sargaon that his cousin Akash Ratnakar had left the house since 6.6.2021 at 11.30 P.M. whose dead body is lying in the field beside Mahant Math on 7.6.2021 at 7.30 A.M. A light blue colour cloth was tied on neck of deceased Akash Ratnakar. On the basis of information of Chaitram Suryavanshi (PW-2), merg was recorded vide Ex.P-2 and thereafter, on the basis of merg (Ex.P- 2), the FIR was registered against unknown person vide Ex.P-1. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-16. Memorandum statements of the appellants were recorded vide Exs.P-6, P-7 to P-8 and on the basis of their memorandum statements, clothes of the appellants stains with blood on producing the same by them were recovered vide recovery panchnama Exs.P-9, P-10 and P-11. Seizure memos were also prepared vide Exs.P-12, P-13 and P-14. Bloodstained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-15. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex.P-5. Inquest was conducted over dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P-18. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Center, Saragaon, where Dr.Amit Agrawal (PW-5) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P- 4 and found following injuries:-
Laceration wound over left side of head 4x2cm, 3x2cm
Laceration wound over vertex of head 5x2cm, 4x2cm, 2x1cm.
Tongue protrude between teeth.
The doctor has opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and death was homicidal in nature. One mobile of accused Rakesh Rohidas bearing No.9755609894 was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-28. The appellants were arrested vide arrest memos Exs.P-30 to P-32. Seized towel, iron rod, bloodstained soil, plain soul and clothes seized from the appellants were sent to FSL for chemical examination vide Ex.P-33 and in FSL report, human blood was found on the clothes seized from appellant-Karan Suryavanshi.
4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and after due investigation, the appellants were charge- sheeted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Champa, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Session, Janjgir-Champa, from where the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir received the case on transfer for trial. The accused/appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence.
5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents Exs.P-1 to P-35. Statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied guilt. However, they examined none in their defence, however, exhibited the statement of Smt.Poonam Ratnakar as Ex.D-1.
6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 12.01.2023, convicted the appellants for
The main legal point established in the judgment is that confessional statements made to a police officer are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and no part of it is admissible under ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of a confession made to a police officer under Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act.
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....
The sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the admissibility of confessional statements, and the requirement for a complete chain of evidence in establishing guilt.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion.(2) Disclosure statement – It is only so much of i....
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
