The court upheld that confessions made in police custody are inadmissible, reinforcing acquittal due to lack of evidence beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 21-8-2003 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in S. T. No. 75/2002, whereby and whereunder the learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitted the private respondent - Uday Ram of the offence under S.302 and S.376 (1) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC - ) by affording benefit of doubt. The applicant is the uncle of the deceased (name not mentioned, as per charge - sheet charge of rape also levelled against respondent No. 2 - Uday Ram) who filed the instant criminal revision under S.397 read with S.401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code - ).

2. The instant criminal revision has been filed on the ground that the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court is patently erroneous, contrary to the evidence and bad in law. The trial Court is misconceived and wrong in acquitting respondent No. 2. The trial Court has failed to consider the evidence in its proper perspective and led its opinion that the contradiction, omission is material. The trial Court erred in holding that S.26 of the Evidence Act is attracted in the matter. The trial Court erred in holding that the extra - judicial confession made by accused / respondent No. 2 - Uday Ram before the prosecution witnesses is inadmissible. The trial Court extended benefit of doubt to accused / respondent No. 2 without there being any foundation of law. The accused / respondent No. 2 was not in the surveillance of police while making confession of crime and the confession is made in isolation to the villagers who duly supported the same in the trial. Further, it is on the ground that the finding of the trial Court is erroneous that the seizure was not proved and also on the refusal of accused to give sample of semen, the benefit should not go to the favour of accused / respondent No. 2. Hence, it is prayed that the criminal revision may be allowed, the judgment passed by the trial Court may be set aside and suitable orders may be passed for retrial of the accused / respondent No. 2 before the trial Court.

3. Facts of case in brief are that on 13th February, 2002 at about 9.00 a.m., Sanjay Kumar (PW - 6) recorded merg vide Ex. P / 10, in which he stated that the deceased (name not mentioned) aged about 16 years, at about 8.30 p.m. on 12th February, 2002 had complained pain in stomach and she left her parents residence to answer the call of nature. When she did not return, the family members and the villagers searched her, but she was not traceable in the night. Again in the morning when they were searching the deceased, they noticed her in hanging condition on the tree and thereafter, the matter was reported to the Police. Lalbagh Police have prepared inquest vide Ex. P / 2 on 13th February, 2002 and sent the body for autopsy. Dr. Anil Mahakalkar (PW - 8) conducted autopsy on 13th February, 2002 vide report Ex. - P / 12 and noticed the following multiple injuries :
i. Contusion over left side cheek 4\" x 2½\" irregular shape;
ii. Contusion over nose just below bridge of nose 2\" x 1\" reddish brown in colour;
iii. Contusion over chin left sided 2½\" x 1\";
iv. Contusion over left maxillary region 1\" x 1\";
v. Abrasion right arm lateral aspect 1\" x ½\" clotted blood present over it;
vi. Abrasion 1½ x ½\" semicircular shape and posteriorly oblique border on right arm just below injury No. 5;
vii. Abrasion right elbow posterior aspect 1\" x ½\" interrupted;
viii. Abrasion left elbow posterior aspect ½\" x ½\" interrupted;
ix. Abrasion left foot anterior aspect 1\" x 1\" clotted blood present over the surrounding areas;
x. Abrasion right