The main legal point established in the judgment is the inadmissibility of extra-judicial confession and detailed confessions recorded by a police officer at the police station, violating Sections 24 and 25 of the Evidence Act.

ORDER

1. The instant application for suspension of sentences under Section 389 Cr.P.C. has been preferred by appellants-applicants who have been convicted and sentenced as below vide judgment dated 20.03.2021 passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, Hanumangarh in Sessions Case No.17/2018: Offence Under Section Imprisonment Fine Sentence in default of fine 302/34 IPC Life imprisonment Rs.10,000/- 2 Months' SI 201 IPC 3 Years' RI Rs.1,000/- 15 Days' SI Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. Learned Public Prosecutor has filed reply to the application for suspension of sentences.

Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of the instant application for suspension of sentences are noted hereinbelow:-

The appellant Pooja was married to the deceased Kaluram about six years before the incident. Kaluram and Pooja went missing whereupon, his brother Deepak lodged a missing person report (No.01/2018) at the Police Station Tibbi on 12.02.2018. Enquiry of the missing person report was assigned to Shri Lekhram, ASI Police Station Tibbi who claims to have interrogated the appellants who allegedly confessed that Pooja was involved in an illicit affair with the accused appellants Sandeep @ Gurpreet Singh and Kor Singh and that as a culmination of this illicit affair, Shri Kaluram was murdered in the field of Sukhdev Singh and his dead body was buried therein. Shri Lekhram submitted the inquiry report with the above conclusions whereupon, FIR No. 104/2018 came to be registered at the Police Station Rawatsar on 17.02.2018. The accused appellants were arrested on 18.02.2018 and the IO claims to have recorded informations of all three accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and purportedly acting in furtherance thereof, the skeletal remains of Shri Kaluram were recovered buried in the field of Sukhdev Singh.

3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the record and find that entire prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence in form of extra-judicial confession, recovery of the dead body and motive.

4. On a perusal of the statements of the witnesses who deposed about extra-judicial confession viz. Deepak (PW.1), Dhanna Ram (PW.2), Savitri (PW.3), Vidhya Devi (PW.4) and Manju (PW.5), it is clear that though these witnesses alleged that the accused Pooja made an extra-judicial confession but they also stated that the accused was present at the police station when she confessed to the crime.

5. The enquiry of the missing person report was undertaken by Lekhram (PW.16) who stated in his evidence that during thereof, he concluded that accused persons had killed Kaluram owing to illicit marital affairs of Pooja with Sandeep @ Gurpreet Singh and Kor Singh and that the dead body was buried in the field of Sukhdev Singh.

6. Apparently thus, the location where the dead body was recovered was already know to the police. There is merit in the contention of the appellants' counsel that the extra-judicial confession having been extracted at the police station, would be hit by Section 24 of the Evidence Act.

7. Furthermore, we find that interrogation notes of the accused (Ex.P/37 - Pooja, Ex.P/38 - Kor Singh and Ex.P/39 - Sandeep @ Gurpreet Singh) which contain detailed confessions made by the accused and were recorded by a police officer at the police station, were allowed to be proved by the trial court in gross violation of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. In this background, we are of the opinion that the appellants have available to them, strong and plausible grounds for assailing the impugned judgment. Hearing of the appeal is likely to consume time.

8. Accordingly, the instant application for suspension of sentences filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the sentences passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge No.1, Nohar, District Hanumangarh vide judgment dated 20.03.2021 in Sessions Case No.17/2018 against the appellants- applicants (1) Kor Singh S/o Shri Gurdayal Singh, (2) Sandeep @