Back
2025 Supreme(Gau) 1433
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, ANJAN MONI KALITA, JJ.
Awadesh Chouhan S/O Saturi Chouhan - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A./158 of 2023
Decided on : 26-09-2025
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Homicide
Act Referred
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.164, S.313
CUSTOMS ACT: S.108
Headnote
(B) Confession - Retracted confessions can support conviction but must be corroborated. Appellant no. 1’s confession found voluntary despite later retraction and accompanied by corroborating evidence from prosecution witnesses regarding how the body was disposed. (Paras 40, 46)
(C) Hearsay Evidence - Evidence from prosecution relied on was deemed hearsay without corroborating witnesses which undermined the convictions of the appellants. (Paras 19, 20, 39)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for the murder of Rakesh Chouhan, whose body was found in a pond. The case hinged on the retracted confession of appellant no. 1 and testimonies from eyewitnesses which were primarily hearsay. (Paras 2, 4, 20)
Findings of Court:
Appellant no. 1 guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and involved in evidence destruction; appellant no. 2 guilty only of the latter; appellant no. 3 acquitted. The prosecution failed to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant no. 3. (Paras 46, 48)
Issues: Whether sufficient evidence linked appellants to the crime and the admissibility of retracted confessions in their conviction. (Paras 12, 14, 17, 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant no. 1's confession, although retracted, was corroborated by other evidence showing his involvement, while hearsay evidence lacked reliability to convict the other appellants. (Paras 40, 46, 49)
Result: Appeal allowed partially; appellant no. 1 convicted for culpable homicide not amounting to murder and appellant no. 2 for evidence destruction; appellant no. 3 acquitted.
For the Appellants :Mr. A.I. Uddin, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Ms. B. Bhuyan, Sr. Adv. & APP, Assam.
JUDGMENT :
M. Zothankhuma, J.
1. Heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Sr. Counsel and Addl. P.P., Assam assisted by Ms. R. Das, learned counsel appearing for the State.
2. This appeal has been filed by the 3 appellants, who have been convicted under Sections 302 /201/34 of the IPC, vide judgment dated 11.11.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Karbi Anglong, Diphu, in Sessions Case No.72/2009 and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each under Sections 302 /34 of the IPC. They were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years each under Sections 201 /34 of the IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year each.
3. The brief facts of the case is that an FIR dated 18.02.2007 had been submitted by one Rameswar Chouhan who died before giving his testimony in the learned Trial Court, to the effect that his younger brother, Sri Rakesh Chouhan went missing from his house around 9 PM on 14.02.2007. The ejahar was submitted at Borlangphar P.P. Thereafter, the dead body of missing Rakesh Chouhan was found in the pond of Late Sudama Chouhan at about 11:45 AM on 18.02.2007. As a muffler was found around the neck of Rakesh Chouhan, it was suspected that he had been strangulated to death with the muffler. The FIR gave the names of the seven suspected persons, who could have been involved in the death of the deceased. The suspected persons included the present three appellants, namely Awadesh Chouhan (appellant no.1), Munna Khan (appellant no.2) and Saturi Chouhan (appellant no.3). The appellant no.1 is the son of the appellant no. 3.
4. Consequent to the FIR, Diphu P.S. Case No.32/2007 was registered on 19.02.2007. After the investigation was completed, the Investigating Officer (PW-8) submitted a charge-sheet, having found a prima facie case under Sections 302 /201/34 IPC against the three appellants. The other four co- accused were however discharged from the case, as no evidence had been found against the four co-accused by the case I.O.
5. The learned Trial Court thereafter framed charge under Section 302 /34 and Section 201 /34 IPC against the appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. The learned Trial Court thereafter examined 11 (eleven) prosecution witnesses and after examining the appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the appellants were guilty of murdering the deceased Rakesh Chouhan and causing the disappearance of the evidence of the commission of the offence. The learned Trial Court thereafter convicted all the appellants under Section 302 /34 IPC and 201/34 IPC.
7. Being aggrieved, the appellants have filed the present appeal.
8. Mr. A.I. Uddin, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the conviction of the appellants has been based on the evidence of PW-5, PW-9 and the retracted confessional statement of the appellant no.1, which had been made under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the evidence of PW-5 is to the effect that the mother of PW-5 and the sister of the deceased had gone to the house of the appellant no.3 Sri Saturi Chauhan. The sister of the appellant no.3 thereafter had told them that she had seen the appellant nos.1 and 2 taking away the deceased by holding him. PW-5 further stated in his evidence that the people from their village thereafter questioned the appellant nos.1 & 2 about the whereabouts of the deceased Rakesh Chouhan after taking him. Though the appellant nos.1 & 2 kept silent, they later stated that the body of the deceased was in the pond of Sudama Chouhan, after being questioned by the police. Thereafter the police directed the appellant nos.1 & 2 to bring out the body of the deceased. The appellant nos.1 & 2 thereafter, in the presence of the police and the peo
