IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SANJAY AGRAWAL, JJ.
Kishore Rajwade S/o Ramkeshwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRA No. 1050 of 2018, CRA No. 1115 of 2018
Decided on : 29-07-2024
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 120B, and 201 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeals against conviction - Appellants convicted for conspiracy and murder - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and confessions of juvenile co-accused - Court found confessions inadmissible due to lack of joint trial - Conviction set aside on benefit of doubt. (Paras 24, 25)
Facts of the case:
The appellants conspired to murder Jugeshwar, husband of Sarita Rajwade, due to marital discord and external relationship. The deceased was assaulted and his body concealed. Prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence and confessions of juvenile co-accused. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The trial court's reliance on confessions of juvenile co-accused was erroneous as they were not tried jointly with the appellants, violating Section 30 of the Evidence Act. (Paras 24, 25)
Issues: Whether the trial court was justified in convicting the appellants based on confessions of co-accused not tried jointly. (Para 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that confessions of co-accused cannot be used against another unless they are tried together, reaffirming the principle of benefit of doubt in criminal cases. (Paras 24, 25)
Result: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Invoking the criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, Kishore Rajwade (A-1) has preferred Cr.A. No.1050/2018 and Sarita Rajwade (A-2) has preferred Cr.A. No.1115/2018 calling in question legality, validity and correctness of judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 30-6-2018 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, in Sessions Trial No.65/2017 by which the two appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: -
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Sec. 302 read with Sec. 120B of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months |
| Sec. 201 of the IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.50/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months Both the sentences shall run concurrently |
Sarita Rajwade (A-2)
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Sec. 302 read with Sec. 120B of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months |
3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 7-7-2017 at 9.30 p.m. near Anrokha Road, Police Station Odgi, District Surajpur, accused Sarita Rajwade (A-2) & accused Kishore Rajwade (A-1) along with two other juvenile co-accused namely, Yogesh Rajwade & Rajesh Rajwade conspired together and in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Jugeshwar – husband of accused Sarita Rajwade (A-2), by axe by which he suffered grievous injuries and died, and in order to screen themselves from the offence, dead body of Jugeshwar, his motorcycle & his mobile-phone were hidden in various places at Odgi forest and thereby committed the offence. It is the further case of the prosecution that accused Sarita Rajwade (A-2) had relationship outside of marriage with one Devpal (PW-5) and deceased Jugeshwar has seen the same on 7-7-2017 pursuant to which it is also the case of the prosecution that Jugeshwar started harassing her and in order to get rid of her husband, Sarita (A-2) conspired with Kishore (A-1) and two other juvenile co-accused and contracted with them for Rs. 50,000/- to kill her husband Jugeshwar and in advance, she had given her tops valuing Rs. 5,000/- to Yogesh – one of the juvenile co-accused and thereafter, in order to give effect to their conspired plan, Kishore A-1, Sarita A-2 and two juvenile co-accused Yogesh & Rajesh administered liquor to Jugeshwar and committed marpit with him by axe and other offences. Parshottam (PW-2) reported the matter to the police on 13-7-2017 vide morgue intimation Ex.P-3. Spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.P-4 in the form of Crime Details Form. Nazri naksha was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex.P-8. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-27. Inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.P-2. Dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Odgi vide Ex.P-26. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Manish Mishra (PW-3) vide autopsy report Ex.P-5 in which cause of death was stated to be due to shock and haemorrhage and death was homicidal. It was further opined that the injuries suffered by the deceased may have been caused by axe. Memorandum statement of juvenile co-accused Yogesh was recorded vide Ex.P-10 pursuant to which seizure of motorcycle, mobile phone and tops/ear wrings were made vide Exs.P-11, P-12 & P-13 in presence of Baleshwar Rajwade (PW-9) & Keshwar Rajwade (PW-19). Similarly, memorandum statement of another juvenile co-accused Rajesh was also recorded vide Ex.P-14 pursuant to which seizure of axe, clothes and mobile phone were made vide Exs.P-15, P-16 & P-17 in presence of Baleshwar Rajwade (PW-9) & Keshwar Rajwade (PW-19). Memorandum statement of accused Sarita (A-2) was recorded vide Ex.P-18, but nothing was seized pursuant to her memorandum statement. Identification of seized articles from the body of deceased Jugeshwar w
Suresh Budharmal Kalani alias Pappu Kalani v. State of Maharashtra
A.T. Mydeen and another v. Assistant Commissioner, Customs Department
Balbir Singh v. State of Punjab
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Yedala Subba Rao and another v. Union of India
Haricharan Kurmi v. State of Bihar
Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat and another
Kashmira Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
Nathu v. State of Uttar Pradesh
Surinder Kumar Khanna v. Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another unless tried jointly; conviction based solely on such confessions violates evidentiary standards.
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....
The court established that a sole confessional statement from a co-accused cannot be the basis for a conviction without corroborating evidence; the absence of eyewitnesses and substantial proof resul....
A confession by a co-accused is inadmissible against another under Section 25 of the Evidence Act; therefore, the prosecution's failure to connect the accused with the crime led to acquittal.
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.