Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9393
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Bibhu Datta Guru, J
Maaujuddin – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 707 of 2025 | CRA No. 1405 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Mr. Rakesh Kumar
For the Respondents: Mr. Shailendra Sharma
Confessions made to police officers are inadmissible, impacting conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:{"Statute Analysis":"This judgment analyzes the provisions under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and Sections of the IPC related to the case.","Facts of the Case":"The prosecution alleged that on 07.12.2018, a body was found leading to the investigation of the accused concerning homicide. Significant evidence included witness statements and physical evidence collected from the crime scene.","Findings of Court":"The trial court convicted the appellants based on circumstantial evidence and their statements. However, this court overturned those convictions due to insufficient proof beyond a reasonable doubt.","Issues":"The court considered whether the death of the deceased was indeed homicidal and if the recovery of evidence was admissible.","Ratio Decidendi":"The court ruled that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and could not be used to support the convictions, emphasizing the need for proof beyond reasonable doubt.","Result":"In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2024 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges leveled against them."}
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common factual matrix leads to multiple appeals. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. evidence collected formed the basis of the prosecution case. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. defendant's innocence and lack of evidence argued. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 4. court confirms death as homicidal based on medical evidence. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. confessions to police deemed inadmissible. (Para 21 , 22 , 24 , 30) |
| 6. court allows appeals due to insufficient evidence. (Para 32 , 33) |
--- Respondent For Appellant (CRA 707/2025) : Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Advocate For Appellant (CRA 1405/2025) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble S hri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
2 8 . 0 7 .202 5
1. Since the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and common impugned judgment, this Court is disposing of the same by a common judgment.
2. This criminal appeals under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) are directed against the impunged judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.33/2019, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following manner :-
CONVICTION
SENTENCE
Under 392/120B of IPC
RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one month
Under 397/34 of IPC
RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one month
Under 302/34 of IPC
RI for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one month
Under 201 of IPC
RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one month
With a direction to run all the sentences concurrently
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.12.2018 at about
16:45 hrs., informant Rajesh Rathia (PW-1) appeared at the Police Station Lalunga and informed that the small children of the village had gone to Dharam Singh's Tikra to pluck guava, when they saw the body of an unknown person, then they informed Guruvaru Rathia of the village. Guruvaru Rathia saw the dead body and informed other villagers about it. The said dead person was an unknown person, dark complexioned, strong body, age about 40 years, his body was bare and he had undergarment near the heels and there was an injury on the forehead and blood was oozing out. On the said information, retired Sub Inspector James Kujur (PW14) registered the Merg Intimation Ex.P-1 and sent the information to SDM Lalunga. On 08.12.2018 James Kujur (PW-14) issued notice (Ex.P-2) to the Panchans to remain present in the proceedings of the Map Panchayatnama of the dead body. In the presence of the Panchans, the proceedings of the Map Panchayatnama (Ex.P-3) were conducted and as the deceased appeared to have been murdered by hitting him on the eyebrows and the back of the head, Map Panchayatnama (Ex.P-3) was prepared, advising post-mortem of the dead body.
4. On 08.12.2018, the Investigating Officer James Kujur (PW-14)
seized blood-soaked soil, plain soil and a 3.18 kg stone from the crime scene in the presence of witnesses Satyanarayan Sharma (PW-3) and Bhishmadev Sharma (PW-2) as per seizure sheet Ex.P-6, and on the same date, 1 beer bottle, 2 empty country liquor bottles, 2 plastic disposables which smelled of alcohol and 1 black iron hair band were seized at a distance of 45 steps from the crime scene in the presence of the above two witnesses as per seizure sheet Ex.P-7. On the said date itself, the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector James Kujur (PW-14) prepared the site map (Ex.P-5) and after returning to the police station, registered a First Information Report (Ex.P-22) against an unknown person u
