A conviction cannot solely rely on a retracted confession without corroborative evidence; circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

JUDGMENT :

Budi Habung, J.

Heard Mr. Tabit Tapak, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr.Gyati Tado, learned Additional Prosecutor for the State respondent No.1.

2. This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.05.2021 passed by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Tirap, Changlang & Longding at Khonsa, whereby the accused was convicted in Khonsa Sessions Case No. 191/2019, corresponding to Diyun P.S. Case No. 24/1999, under Sections 302 , 380, and 201 of the IPC. The appellant was sentenced as follows:

i. To undergo life imprisonment and pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only) for the offence under Section 302 IPC;

ii. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) for the offence of theft in a dwelling house under Section 380 IPC;

iii. To undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) for the offence under Section 201 IPC, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 3 months in addition to said sentences.

It was further ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that on 02.08.1999, PW-2 lodged a written FIR before the Officer-in-Charge, Diyun, Changlang District, reporting that one Santosh Kumar Hajong, aged about 50 years, was found dead on the Manabum–Namsai road near Pakka Nala of village Gautampur at about 7 AM.

4. On receipt of the FIR, a case under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was initially registered. Upon investigation, a report was submitted opining that the death of the deceased was homicidal. The report further stated that the culprit had murdered the deceased during the night of 01.08.1999 and placed the body in the middle of the road near Pakka Nala, Gautampur village. A bicycle was placed near the body to mislead the police and to create an impression that the death had occurred due to a vehicle accident.

5. The post-mortem report revealed that a heavy blunt object had struck the deceased on the forehead with such force that it fractured the skull and damaged the frontal part of the brain, leading to his death. Accordingly, a case under Section 302 IPC was registered and investigated into.

6. During the investigation, the bicycle found near the body was traced and identified as belonging to PW-3, who stated that it had been stolen on 01.08.1999. Several suspects (about 12 persons) were arrested and interrogated, and eventually the present accused was arrested. On his admission, the appellant was forwarded to the Magistrate for recording his confessional statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. The accused confessed before the Magistrate and stated that, on seeing the dead body of a person whom he recognized to be his enemy with whom he had a quarrel earlier due to the land dispute, he took chance and assaulted the deceased with a heavy stone weighing around 8–9 kg. He further admitted that thereafter he stole the bicycle from nearby the village and placed it near the body to mislead the police and create the impression of a road accident.

7. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed under Sections 302 , 380, and 201 IPC against the accused. Charges were framed under the same sections of offences. To prove the charges, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses and relied on several documents during the trial.

8. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined and his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which he denied all allegations