Confessions must be voluntary and adequately corroborated; provocation can reduce murder charges to culpable homicide.

JUDGMENT :

S. VAIDYANATHAN, CJ.

1. The Appellants, who are Accused persons in Sessions Case No.77 of 2013 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, were convicted by the Trial Court for offences under Sections 302/34 IPC as follows:

1.1 The Trial Court held that the convicts are not entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C., as they will have to undergo life imprisonment and they were ordered to serve sentence in prison. Aggrieved by the order of the District and Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai, dated 28.07.2022, the Appellants have preferred these Criminal Appeals before this Court.

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that based on the complaint given by one Smti Sharbih Rakait on 11.07.2006 that her son Shri Salong Rakait was murdered by the appellants along with Mut Rakait and Dilip Chyrmang, a case in O.C. Jowai Police Station Case No.81 (07) 06 under Sections 302/34 IPC came to be registered. Immediately thereafter the case was entrusted to one C. Lamare, Sub Inspector of Police, who, after a thorough investigation and examination of witnesses, arrested the accused persons. The further case of the prosecution is that the dead body was sent for post-mortem after conducting inquest over the dead body. According to the prosecution, all the accused persons pulled the deceased out of the house and committed the crime during puja days.

3. After investigation, a charge sheet was laid before the Court of the ADC, Jowai in C.S.No.86/06 dated 18.08.2006 and was subsequently, made over to the District and Sessions Judge, West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai for trial. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the offences against the accused persons, has examined 8 witnesses, marked 8 documents and exhibited 3 Material Objects. Statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were also obtained from the accused persons. Though case was registered against five persons, during trial, two of them, namely, Dilip Chyrmang and Mut Rakait had expired and therefore, the case against them was abated. All the accused were questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and they denied the charges levelled against them. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the three accused persons guilty of offences and convicted them as stated supra.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants/ accused submitted that only based on the confession made by accused persons, they have been convicted, that too, confession made was not voluntarily, as there were no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. According to him, Police personnel must give 24 hours’ time to accused persons so as to enable them to decide about confession and in this case, only a time of two hours has been granted to them, which is not acceptable. He further submitted that forensic examination was not done in this case and seizure witness was a Police Officer (P.W.3), who cannot be termed as an independent witness. He also submitted that the consequences of giving confession statement had not been properly explained to accused persons in the local language known to them. Learned Senior Counsel for the accused, in support of his submission, strongly relied upon the following judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court:

i) Shivappa vs. State of Karnataka, (1995) 2 SCC 76, wherein it has been held as follows