Back
GAUHATI HIGH COURT - PRINCIPAL SEAT AT GUWAHATI
MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIR ALFAZ ALI, JJ
SRI SUCHENDRA DAS – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF ASSAM – Respondent
Crl.A./132/2019 | Crl.A(J)/32/2019 | Crl.A./314/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: MR D TALUKDAR, MS. B CHOWDHURY AMICUS CURIAE, MR. R. DEV
For the Respondents: PP, ASSAM
Confessions made to police are inadmissible without judicial oversight; convictions require proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction and sentence imposed by Additional Sessions Judge challenged - Prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence and extra-judicial confessions - The absence of corroborative evidence to support confessions led to a failure in proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 24, 38)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25, 26 and 27 - Admissibility of confessions made to police - Court reiterated that confessions made during police custody or to police are inadmissible unless in presence of a Magistrate - The prosecution failed to provide substantial evidence linked to the guilt of the accused. (Paras 29, 31, 37)
Facts of the case:
The victim was reported missing and subsequently found dead, leading to an investigation that revealed circumstantial evidence and confessions that were challenged for their admissibility. Prosecution’s case was based primarily on confessional statements collected during police custody, leading to significant legal scrutiny regarding their admissibility.
Findings of Court:
Conviction was overturned due to lack of corroborative evidence and questionable admissibility of confessions. The appellate court maintained that convictions must be supported by cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The admissibility of extra-judicial confessions and whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to uphold convictions under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that confessions made to police officers are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, and dismissed the prosecution's reliance on circumstantial evidence without sufficient corroboration. The burden of proof lies with the prosecution to establish guilt clearly and beyond reasonable doubt.
Result: Appeals allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. conviction requires adequate evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. case arises from a homicide investigation leading to convictions. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. reliance on circumstantial evidence needs corroboration. (Para 12 , 18) |
| 4. confessions made during police custody are inadmissible. (Para 24 , 30 , 35 , 39) |
| 5. court assessed extra-judicial confessions and their admissibility. (Para 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. court analyzed procedural standards for admissibility of confessions. (Para 29 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. confession reliance without corroborative evidence led to case dismissal. (Para 34 , 37) |
| 8. outcome reflects strict adherence to burden of proof and evidentiary standards. (Para 38) |
JUDGMENT AND ORDER (Oral)
Date : 24-03-2021 (Suman Shyam, J)
All these three Criminal Appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 17.01.2019 passed by the court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hojai in Sessions Case No.74(N)/2017 whereby, each of the appellants have been convicted under Section s 302 /201 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and also to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- each, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 302 IPC. For the offence under Section 201 IPC the appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and also to pay fine of Rs.6000/- each, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for two months in addition. All the sentences were to run concurrently.
2. We have heard Mr. D. Talukdar, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. Appeal No.132/2019, Ms. B. Choudhury, learned Amicus Curiae appearing for the appellant in Crl. Appeal(J) No.32/2019 and Mr. R. Dev, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Crl. Appeal No.314/2019. Ms. B. Bhuyan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam, has appeared on behalf of the State in all the three appeals.
3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that the victim Nirjala Das, aged about 41 years, went missing on 12.07.2017 after she had gone to No.1 Hatikhuli Rubber Garden to collect firewood. When the villagers were searching for her on the next day i.e. 13.07.2017, they saw a newly dug up pit covered y soil and informed the Lumding Police Station. The police had arrived at the spot along with the Executive Magistrate, dug up the pit and took out the dead body of a woman (victim) who was later identified by the son of the victim.
4. The husband of the victim, Sri Gunadhar Das, had gone to Kolkata at that time but immediately upon receipt of information about his wife, he returned back to Lumding and lodged an ejahar with the Officer-in-Charge of Lumding Police Station on 14.07.2017. In the ejahar dated 14.07.2017, the informant had also mentioned that he suspected that some unknown miscreants might have killed his wife and buried her in the hole.
5. It appears from the materials on record that upon receipt of information about the incident on 13.07.2017, G.D. Entry No.296 was made in the Lumding Police Station and thereafter, the police had arrived at the spot and exhumed the body of the victim from a pit in presence of an Executive Magistrate. The ejahar was lodged on the next day i.e. 14.07.2017 by the husband of the informant. Based on the ejahar dated 14.07.2017, Lumding P.S. Case No.120/2017 was registered and the police took up the matter for investigation. During the course of investigation, the I.O. had recorded the statement of the informant and other witnesses, sent the body for post-mortem and thereafter, submitted charge-sheet against four accused persons. Since the accused had pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, the matter went up for trial.
6. There is no eye-witness in this case and the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. In order to bring home the murder charge, the prosecution side had examined 10 witnesses.
7. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused persons had denied all the allegations brought a
