The main legal point established in the judgment is that a confessional statement, even if voluntary, must indicate intention or motive to establish a conviction under Section 302 IPC. The court also emphasized the importance of procedural requirements under Section 164 Cr.P.C and the retraction of the confessional statement.

JUDGMENT :

Michael Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.B.P. Singha, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Ms. S. Jahan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2022 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge at Diphu, Karbi Anglong in Sessions Case No.327/2017 (new)/ Sessions Case No.33/2010 (old), by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/201 IPC. The appellant was sentenced to undergo life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default rigorous imprisonment for 1 (one) year under Section 201 IPC. The sentences were to run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that an FIR dated 22.08.2004 was submitted by the Prosecution Witness No.12 (PW-12), who is the uncle of the deceased boy of 5 years 5 months. The FIR is to the effect that on receiving the news that his nephew Chanakya Baruah had gone missing, an extensive search were made. PW-12 later came to know that his brother-in-law (appellant) recovered the body of his nephew Chanakya Baruah from the septic tank, located in the campus of the Government quarters where the appellant (father of the deceased) lived. PW-12 in his FIR also stated that PW-1, who worked in the house of the appellant as a domestic help had stated that the appellant had committed the murder and that the appellant had also confessed to killing his son. In pursuant to the FIR dated 22.08.2004, Diphu P.S. Case No.116/2004 under Section 302/201 IPC was registered.

4. After investigation of the case was completed, the Investigating Officer (IO) submitted his charge-sheet on 05.05.2018, on finding a prima facie case under Sections 302/201 IPC against the appellant. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Section 302 IPC on 05.05.2018 and added Section 201 IPC on 16.09.2022. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 12 (twelve) Prosecution Witnesses and after examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellant had been guilty in murdering his child and had hidden the body, to cause disappearance of the evidence. Consequently, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302/201 IPC and sentenced him as indicated in the earlier paragraphs.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant had been convicted solely on the basis of his confessional statement made under Section 164 Cr.P.C, without the Magistrate having followed all the procedural requirements prior to recording the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. He submits that due to the confessional statement of the appellant having been recorded without following the mandatory requirements provided in Section 164 Cr.P.C, the defect in the recorded confessional statement of the appellant would be fatal to the admissibility of the said document and accordingly, the same cannot be used as evidence against the appellant. He submits that there is no evidence adduced before the learned Trial Court by any of the Prosecution Witnesses against the appellant, though the statement made by PW-1 to the Police under Section 161 Cr.P.C is to the effect that the appellant had slapped the boy and pushed him due to which the boy got hurt and became senseless, besides the appellant having picked up the boy and thrown him in the septic tank, the same being a statement made to the police, it is not admissible as evidence. In any event, even assuming the statement made by PW-1 to the Police was true, the said fact does not prove that the appellant had any intention to kill his own son.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that prior to recording the appellant’s statem