SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Jhk) 414

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RATNAKER BHENGRA, AMBUJ NATH, JJ.
Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary, S/o. Late Ramjas Choudhary & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) - Respondent
Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 468 of 2018 with Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 222 of 2018
Decided On : 02-07-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mr. P.P.N. Roy, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Arwind Kumar, Mrs. Nalini Jha.
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, APP.

IMPORTANT POINT
Confessions leading to the recovery of evidence are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and circumstantial evidence can be sufficient for conviction in murder cases.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - MURDER AND CONCEALMENT OF EVIDENCE - IPC SECTIONS 302, 201, 34 - The court discussed the provisions of Sections 302 (punishment for murder), 201 (causing disappearance of evidence), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. It interpreted these sections in the context of circumstantial evidence, confessions leading to the recovery of weapons, and the medical evidence supporting the cause of death. The court emphasized that the confessional statement of the accused, which led to the recovery of the murder weapon, was admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, thereby influencing the conviction of the appellants.

Fact of the Case:

The appellants were convicted for the murder of four family members, whose decomposed bodies were discovered in a drain. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including confessions by the appellants and the recovery of a country-made pistol and sword linked to the crime.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had established a strong circumstantial case against the appellants, supported by confessions leading to the recovery of weapons and medical evidence indicating the cause of death. The court concluded that the confessions were admissible and corroborated by the forensic evidence.

Issues: Whether the confessions of the appellants were admissible and whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to convict them for murder and concealment of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that confessions leading to the discovery of evidence are admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of weapons and medical reports, sufficiently established the guilt of the appellants.

Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the convictions under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC were upheld.

JUDGMENT :

Ratnaker Bhengra, J.

Heard learned counsels for the appellants and the learned counsel for the State.

2. The appellants have filed these criminal appeals against the judgment of conviction dated 25.11.2017 and the order of sentence dated 08.12.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bokaro, in connection with Sessions Trial No. 151 of 2013 holding the appellants guilty for the offence under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants were sentenced to undergo RI for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default to undergo SI for two years for the offence under section 302/34 IPC. The appellants were further sentenced for RI for three years and fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo SI for one month for the offence under section 201/34 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and period undergone in custody was ordered to be set off.

3. The prosecution was launched on the basis of written report dated 20.03.2012 of the informant Constable Muttappa Chavan (PW-1), who was posted at C.I.S.F Unit BSL, Bokaro. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.03.2012 at 13:00 hours informant along with Constable Prasanjit Sarkar (PW-2) came to their workplace at Marshalling Yard, B.S.L., Bokaro Plant. Informant further stated that during course of patrolling, at 14:15 hours, when informant along with Constable Prasanjit Sarkar, arrived near Marshalling Yard Tower, they smelt foul odour. Thereafter, they went towards the direction, from where the foul odour was coming out and on reaching there, they found four dead bodies in a drain adjacent to the north boundary wall of the plant which were concealed with bushes. The further case of the prosecution is that the maggots were present over the four dead bodies, faces of all the four bodies were distorted and all the dead bodies were in the process of decomposition. Out of the recovered four dead bodies, two dead bodies were of females wearing nighty aged about 20 years and 25 years and other two dead bodies were of male in which one body was in naked condition aged about 35 years and another was wearing black colour fullpant and coloured T-shirt aged about 25 years and one 2 and 1/2 feet rope was lying near the dead bodies. The information was given through walky-talky in the Control Room to Shift In-charge L.K. Mandal and after receiving the said information the Officers and other employees of the department reached near the dead bodies but the said bodies could not be identified.

4. On the basis of the written report, B.S.City P.S.Case No. 123/2012 dated 20.03.2012 was registered under sections 302/201/34 of the I.P.C against unknown. After investigation, police submitted charge-sheet against the appellants Vijay Choudhary @ Chhotu Choudhary and Raju Sao, under sections 302/201/120B/34 of the IPC and section 27 of the Arms Act and cognizance of the offences were taken and case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellants under sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120(B)/34 of the I.P.C and trial was held. At the conclusion of trial appellants were convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.

5. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, had examined altogether 14 witnesses out of whom PW-1 is Constable Muttappa Chavan, who is the informant of the case; PW-2 is Constable Prasanjit Sarkar; PW-3 is Tribhuwan Kumar Singh, who is Block Co-Operative extension Officer, Chas; PW-4 is Taskin Ahmad, who is Health Supervisor in Mineral Area Development Authority, Chas and he was deputed as Magistrate; PW-5 is Dhiraj Kumar Singh and PW-6 is Kameshwar Singh and both are son and husband of the deceased Anila Devi respectively; PW-7 is Mahabir Singh, who is Executive Magistrate, Bokaro; PW -8 is Dr. Ravi Shekhar ; PW-9 is Dr. Haridwar Singh ; PW-10 is Dr. Bikash Kumar ; PW-11 is Ramod Kumar Singh, who is the investigating officer of the case ; PW-12 is Dr. Hridyesh Kumar Sinha, who is Assistant Director at Jharkhand State Forens

            Click Here to Read the rest of this document
            1
            2
            3
            4
            5
            6
            7
            8
            9
            10
            11
            SupremeToday Portrait Ad
            supreme today icon
            logo-black

            An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

            Please visit our Training & Support
            Center or Contact Us for assistance

            qr

            Scan Me!

            India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

            For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

            whatsapp-icon Back to top