Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
ANANDA SEN, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Deepak Oraon, S/o. Late Charo Oraon & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 644 of 2018 With Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 444 of 2018 With Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 534 of 2018 With Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 558 of 2018
Decided On : 08-05-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302, 201, 364, 120B - Arms Act - Section 27 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - No eyewitnesses - Recovery of skeleton based on confessional statements deemed inadmissible - Chain of circumstances incomplete - Prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 25, 26)
(B) Evidence Act - Section 27 - Requirements for admissibility of confessions and discoveries - Failure to comply with procedural safeguards renders confessions inadmissible. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for murder and related charges based on circumstantial evidence, including confessions and recovery of a skeleton, which was later found to be insufficient for conviction due to lack of corroborative evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the appellants to the crime, leading to the conclusion that the guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of confessions, the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and the establishment of motive.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the confessions were inadmissible due to failure to comply with Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the circumstantial evidence was insufficient to establish guilt.
Result: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside.
JUDGMENT :
Ananda Sen, J.
All these criminal appeals arise out of a common Judgment of Conviction dated 16th March, 2018 and Order of Sentence dated 19th March, 2018 passed by the Additional Judicial Commissioner XIII, Ranchi in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2013 and Sessions Trial No.851 of 2013 corresponding to Ratu Police Station Case No.99 of 2012 (G.R. No.3358 of 2012).
By the aforesaid Judgment of Conviction dated 16th March, 2018 and Order of Sentence dated 19th March, 2018, appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner
| Name of the Appellant [Case Number] | Conviction | Sentence |
| Deepak Oraon [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 644 of 2018] | Under Sections 302 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months |
| Under Section 201 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months | |
| Under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act | R.I. for three years along with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months. | |
| Surendra Kumar Singh @ Surendar Kumar Singh [Cr. Appeal (DB) No. 444 of 2018] | Under Section 364 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months |
| Under Section 302 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months | |
| Under Section 201 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months | |
| Sabir Ansari [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.534 of 2018] | Under Sections 364 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months |
| Under Section 302 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months | |
| Under Section 201 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months. | |
| Pradip Kumar Singh @ Bhagwat Singh [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.558 of 2018] | Under Sections 364 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months |
| Under Section 302 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for life and a fine of Rs.50,000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months | |
| Under Section 201 read with Section 120B I.P.C. | R.I. for seven years along with fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine R.I. for three months. |
2. Appellant Surendra Kumar Singh @ Surendar Kumar Singh [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.444 of 2018], appellant Deepak Oraon [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.644 of 2018] and appellant Pradip Kumar Singh @ Bhagwat Singh [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.558 of 2018] have faced trial in Sessions Trial No.74 of 2013, whereas appellant Sabir Ansari [Cr. Appeal (DB) No.534 of 2018] along with accused Mitrajeet Singh and Sandipan Singh have faced trial in Sessions Trial No.851 of 2013, but the judgment in both the trial is common.
3. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. B.M. Tripathy and all the other counsel appearing on behalf of the respective appellants submitted that the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstances, which would remotely implicate these appellants is not complete. They submit that the prosecution case, as narrated in the First Information Report, has been developed at a later stage, when the informant deposed as a witness before the Trial Court. Even the wife of the deceased has not narrated anything to implicate these appellants. The statement of the wife of the deceased is also not in consonance with the First Informati
The court ruled that circumstantial evidence and confessions were insufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Information leading to the discovery of fact cannot form the foundation of the prosecution case as it is one link in the chain of proof and the other links must be forged in a manner allowed by the l....
The admissibility of a confession under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the mandatory provision of inflicting a fine under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion.(2) Disclosure statement – It is only so much of i....
Criminal Law – Appeal against conviction – Theory of last seen – Reliability of - The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between point of time when Accused and deceased were seen las....
Conviction under IPC Sections 364A and 302 was overturned due to lack of direct evidence linking the appellant to the crimes, highlighting the necessity of corroborating evidence in circumstantial ca....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
