Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 5584
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Sanjay K. Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Criminal Appeal | 202/2017
For the Appellants/Petitioners: [Counsel Name]
For the Respondents: [State Counsel Name]
Conviction based on extra-judicial confession requires corroboration and must inspire confidence; insufficient evidence led to acquittal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment for murder - The appellant was convicted based on extra-judicial confession and recovery of a weapon - The court found the extra-judicial confession inadmissible and the recovery insufficient to establish guilt - The conviction was set aside on the principle of benefit of doubt. (Paras 20, 21)
(B) Extra-Judicial Confession - Admissibility and evidentiary value - Such confessions are considered weak evidence and require corroboration; they must inspire confidence and be made voluntarily. (Paras 13, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his nephew with an axe. The prosecution's case relied on an extra-judicial confession and the recovery of a blood-stained axe. The trial court convicted the appellant based on these evidences.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the extra-judicial confession was inadmissible and the prosecution failed to establish a link between the weapon and the crime.
Issues: The main issues were the admissibility of the extra-judicial confession and the sufficiency of evidence linking the weapon to the crime.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that extra-judicial confessions must be corroborated and proven reliable, and the prosecution failed to establish the weapon's use in the crime.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant was convicted for murder based on evidence of assault and weapon recovery. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides regarding the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of the evidence regarding the nature of the death and authorship of the crime. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. discussion on the admissibility and reliability of extra-judicial confessions. (Para 12 , 13 , 15 , 18) |
| 5. final decision to acquit the appellant based on the principle of benefit of doubt. (Para 20) |
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1.This Criminal Appeal preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C . is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18.7.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), South Bastar, Dantewada (CG) in Sessions Case No.202/2017, by which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :-
2.Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 20.4.2017, at about 6:00 p.m, the appellant assaulted his nephew Saybu (deceased) by an axe, as a result of which, he died on account of the grievous injuries sustained by him on his neck and thereby, committed the offence. The Merg Intimation (Ex.P/21) was lodged by the father of deceased stating that on 20.4.2017, at 2:00 p.m., his son Saybu (since deceased) had gone out of the house to drink chhind juice. On the same day, in the evening, one Santar Halba informed him that his son is lying under a mango tree of his field. When the father of the deceased reached there, he saw his son (deceased) unresponsive with injuries on his neck and blood oozing out from the wounds, and thus, found him dead. Thereafter, inquest report (Ex.-P/2) was prepared and FIR (Ex.P/20) was registered against unknown persons. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Nityanand Kumar (PW-5) and he gave his report vide Ex.P/20 opining that the cause of death is due to injury on the vital structure of the neck caused by sharp edged heavy cutting weapon and the death is homicidal in nature.
3.Pursuant to the memorandum statement (Ex.P/3) of the appellant, a blood stained axe was seized vide Ex.P/4, which was sent along with the other articles for chemical examination to FSL. As per the FSL report (Ex.P/28), human blood was found on the seized weapon- axe. After due investigation, the appellant was prosecuted for the aforesaid offence.
4.In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents.
5.Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, against which, this Appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
6.Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the extra judicial made by the appellant before the Police Officer is not reliable and admissible in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act . Further, the prosecution has failed to prove that the seized weapon was used in commission of crime, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.
7.Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment of conviction and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The appellant is not entitled for acquittal and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and have gone through the record with utmost circumspection.
9.The first question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative relying on
