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

2022 Supreme(Megh) 287

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG
Sanjib Banerjee, Wanlura Diengdoh, J.
Shri Prosteroy Lyngkhoi - Appellant
Versus
State of Meghalaya & Ors. - Respondents
Crl. A. No. 6/2020 and Crl. M.C. No. 18/2020
Decided On : 26-04-2022

Advocates appeared:
H.R. Nath, Advocate, for the Appellant; K. Khan, PP and S. Sengupta, Addl. PP, for the Respondents

IMPORTANT POINT
The voluntary nature of a confessional statement and its evidentiary value, despite procedural irregularities, were central to the court's decision.

Headnote:

Investigation - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - [Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973]

Fact of the Case:

The appellant questions a judgment of conviction and life imprisonment for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The appeal challenges the investigation procedure, inquest, and confessional statement recording.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty based on the evidence, including the confessional statement, and the sequence of events. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence.

Issues: The principal challenge pertains to the investigation procedure, inquest, and confessional statement recording. The appellant questions the circumstances of inquest, recording of the confessional statement, and the investigation anomalies.

Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the appellant's confessional statement, corroborated by witness testimonies, to establish guilt. The court emphasized the voluntary nature of the confessional statement and upheld its evidentiary value despite procedural irregularities.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- were upheld.

JUDGMENT

Sanjib Banerjee, CJ. - The appellant questions a judgment of conviction of February 27, 2020 and the consequential sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 20,000/- for the offence he was found to have committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. Of the several grounds raised in the appeal, the principal aspect of challenge pertains to the perceived shoddy investigation conducted and the alleged failure by the investigating agency in following the procedure as laid down by law. The appellant questions the circumstances in which an inquest over the dead body was conducted at a time when the first information report had not been registered; he refers to the dubious circumstances surrounding the purported confessional statement that he made and which was recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by an Executive Magistrate; he focuses on the fact that he was administered oath at the time that his statement under Section 164 of the Code was recorded, which is contrary to the express stipulation of Section 164(5) of the Code; he emphasises that there is no recorded statement attributed to him of having indicated where the murder weapon could be found; and, he questions the cavalier manner in which several anomalies which resulted in the chain of circumstances being snapped being overlooked by the trial court despite the trial court being critical of the way in which the prosecution conducted the case.

3. The incident occurred on December 15, 2007. As per the prosecution version, an initial information was received by the police over telephone in the early hours of December 16, 2007 at about 1:44 am, but the formal FIR was lodged only in the evening of December 16, 2007, by which time an inquest over the body had already been conducted after the police reached the place of occurrence at or about 9:30 am on December 16, 2007.

4. The FIR informants were the headman of Lummyrsiang village and another official. These officials indicated in the FIR that they had got the information from one Osperwell Wahlang, who is the brother of the wife of the appellant herein and was also the brother-in-law of the victim. It also appears that the appellant himself surrendered before the police on December 16, 2007 and though the prosecution claimed that he had confessed that he had committed the offence, the confession before the investigating agency had to be disregarded.

5. It transpires from the oral evidence adduced in course of the trial that the appellant herein had gone to Ramkrai jungle near the Lummyrsiang village in the morning of December 15, 2007. He returned shortly thereafter and disclosed to his wife, who was examined as PW 3 at the trial, that the appellant had murdered his brother-in-law, Ningstar Thongni, who was the husband of the sister of the appellant's wife. The wife asserted in her testimony that she fainted upon hearing the shocking news from her husband and when she regained consciousness she rushed to her elder brother, Osperwell Wahlang. Osperwell Wahlang deposed at the trial to the effect that when he was attending church service on December 15, 2007, his sister came calling him and pleaded with him to come to the sister's house. Upon Osperwell Wahlang accompanying the sister to the sister's house, the sister informed him that her husband had confessed to having murdered Ningstar Thongni earlier that day.

6. Osperwell Wahlang testified in course of the trial that he immediately made out a complaint or a writing in the form of information addressed to the Durbar Shnong and he rushed immediately after receiving the news to inform the headman of the village. It was the headman of the village and another official who lodged the FIR in their names later in the day.

7. It also came out from the oral evidence adduced at the trial that shortly after Osperwell Wahlang reported the matter to the village headman and other officials, the villagers headed to the jungle to find the de

    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