The confession recorded without statutory compliance is inadmissible, undermining the prosecution's circumstantial evidence in a murder appeal, reinforcing the principle of presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal from Jail under Section 383 , Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [‘CrPC’ or ‘the Code’, for short] is preferred against a Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2020 passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong at Diphu in Sessions Case no. 41/1998. By the Judgment and Order dated 21.12.2020, the accused-appellant has been convicted for the offence of murder under Section 302 , INDIAN PENAL CODE [IPC] and he has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. It has been ordered that the period of detention already undergone by the accused-appellant shall be set-off under Section 428 , CrPC.

2. The First Information Report [FIR] was lodged before the Officer In-Charge, Diphu Police Station on 17.09.1994 by one Pramod Lele as the informant stating about an incident which occurred at around 08-30 p.m. on 16.09.1994. In the FIR, the informant had inter-alia alleged that at around 08-30 p.m. on 16.09.1994, one Khagen Daimari, a cook in Geeta Ashram, was assaulted on head from behind by someone and Khagen Daimari was admitted to Diphu Civil Hospital. The FIR further mentioned that there was severe bleeding throughout the night. It further mentioned that Khagen Daimari was coming from a nearby village to Geeta Ashram and he was assaulted at a place just outside the boundary of the Ashram.

3. On receipt of the FIR, the Officer In-Charge, Diphu Police Station registered the same as Diphu Police Station Case no. 190/1994 for the offence under Section 325 , IPC and thereafter, entrusted the investigation to one Md. Badrul Islam, an Officer attached to Diphu Police Station at that time.

4. The Investigating Officer [I.O.], Md. Badrul Islam [P.W.5] on being entrusted with the investigation, proceeded to Diphu Civil Hospital, at first, to question the injured, Khagen Daimari. But, he could not record the statement of the injured as he was in an unconscious state. Thereafter, he proceeded to the place of occurrence for inspection and interrogation of the witnesses. It has emerged from the testimony of the I.O., P.W.5 that on interrogating the witnesses, he learnt that the accused-appellant [hereinafter also referred to as ‘the appellant’, at places, for short] had committed the incident. Then, he went to the appellant’s house situated nearby and seized a wooden ural mari [wooden rice stamper] from his house by a Seizure List [Ext.-1]. The I.O. then apprehended the appellant and took him to the Police Station where he was interrogated.

5. Information was received in the meantime that the injured died at Diphu Civil Hospital on 18.09.1994. The I.O. then proceeded to Diphu Civil Hospital and held inquest on the deadbody of the deceased at Diphu Civil Hospital itself through the Sub-Divisional Health Officer, Diphu Civil Hospital. The Sub-Divisional Health Officer, Diphu Civil Hospital prepared an Inquest Report, Ext.-3 which was exhibited by the I.O. during his testimony before the Court with his signature therein.

6. On 18.09.1994, the I.O. also made a prayer before the jurisdictional Court to add Section 302 , IPC in Diphu Police Station Case no. 190/1994 [corresponding G.R. Case no. 479/1994]. When the appellant was forwarded to the Court after his arrest on 18.09.1994 with prayers to remand him to judicial custody and to record his statement under Section 164 , CrPC, the jurisdictional Court on 18.09.1994 remanded the appellant to judicial custody. When the appellant was produced from judicial custody