Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 3952
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
Rongon Mukhopadhyay, Ambuj Nath, JJ
Rajendra Oraon – Appellant
Versus
State Of Jharkhand – Respondent
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 485 of 2001
For the Appellants/Petitioners: A. K. Chaturvedy
For the Respondents: Pankaj Kumar
An extra-judicial confession corroborated by independent circumstantial evidence, including recovery of weapons at the accused's instance and statements of deceased witnesses made admissible by statutory exception, constitutes sufficient basis for a conviction of murder.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 161 and 164 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 33 - Murder conviction - Admissibility of statement - Extra-judicial confession - Recovery of weapon - The statement of an eye-witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is admissible in evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, upon the death of the witness during the pendency of the trial. (Paras 12, 21)
(B) Criminal Evidence - Extra-judicial confession - Evidentiary value - Where an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by recovery of weapons pursuant to the pointing out of the accused and other circumstantial evidence, it forms a reliable basis for conviction. (Paras 17, 21)
(C) Criminal Procedure - Confession under Section 164 - Proof - A confession recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be read in evidence unless it is duly proved by the official who recorded it. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
A family of six was found dead, with some victims exhibiting signs of physical assault and drowning. The prosecution relied heavily on an extra-judicial confession, the recovery of weapons from a well at the instance of the accused, and the statement of a deceased eye-witness recorded during the investigation. The defense argued that the confession was coerced and that the trial court ignored inconsistencies in the evidentiary record.
Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the homicidal nature of death was established by medical evidence. The extra-judicial confession was accepted as credible because it was corroborated by the recovery of weapons and the statement of the deceased witness, which was held to be admissible under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act given their demise before testifying. Procedural confessions that were not substantiated by official testimony were excluded from consideration.
Issues: Whether the conviction could be sustained based on an extra-judicial confession, the recovery of incriminating weapons, and the statement of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure who died before giving evidence in court.
Ratio Decidendi: An extra-judicial confession corroborated by independent evidence, such as the recovery of items at the instance of the accused and the recorded testimony of a deceased witness (admissible under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act), is sufficient to ground a conviction, even where other procedural statements remain unproven.
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history, charges, and prosecution overview. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 2. contentions of parties regarding evidence admissibility and conviction validity. (Para 11 , 12) |
| 3. determination of homicidal death through medical and postmortem evidence. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. analysis of evidentiary value of extra-judicial confessions and recovery of weapons. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. application of section 33 of indian evidence act and affirmation of conviction. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2001 (Sentence passed on 06.09.2001) holding the appellant Rajendra Oraon guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code by Sri. D. K. Sinha, learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga]
1. Heard Mr. A. K. Chaturvedy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Kumar, learned P. P. for the State.
2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.08.2001 (Sentence passed on 06.09.2001) passed by Sri. D. K. Sinha, learned Sessions Judge, Lohardaga (as His Lordship was then), holding the appellant Rajendra Oraon guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code in connection with S.T. No. 186 of 1997 & 18 of 1997 arising out of Lohardaga P.S. Case No. 140 of 1996 corresponding to G.R. No. 377 of 1996 and thereby sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life alongwith a fine of Rs. 5000/-, no alternative sentence was passed in default of payment of fine.
3. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of fardbeyan of the informant Bandhan Oraon alleging therein that on 21.10.1996 at about 11:30 P.M., while he was on patrolling duty, he received information that the appellant Rajendra Oraon had murdered his step brother Ram Bilas Oraon and his five other family members and after committing their murder, he dumped their dead body in a well. He went to the place of occurrence, which was house of the deceased Ram Bilas Oraon and found the dead body of deceased Ram Bilas Oraon lying inside with several injuries. He also found the dead bodies of other deceased persons floating in the well. Jagmuni Kumari, nine years’ old daughter of the deceased Ram Bilas Oraon and his father-in-law Sukur Oraon, on seeing the occurrence, had fled away due to which their life could be saved.
4. After investigation, police found the occurrence to be true and submitted charge-sheet against the appellant on 18.01.1997, under Section 302/201 of the Indian Penal Code. The cognizance of the case was taken by the Court of learned C.J.M., Lohardaga on 19.01.1997 under the aforesaid Sections. This case was committed to the Court of Sessions by learned C.J.M., Lohardaga as it was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions.
5. Charge was framed against the appellant on 01.04.1997 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The contents of the charge were read over and explained to him in Hindi to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has adduced both oral and documentary evidence.
7. Doctor Kameshwar Thakur, P.W. 1 has performed the postmortem of the deceased persons. He had proved the post mortem reports which are Ext: - 1 Series.
Mohan Oraon, P.W. 2 and Ghurti Oraon P.W. 3 are the formal witnesses, who have proved their signature in the Inquest Report which are Ext:- 2 to 2/5 and 2/6 to 2/11 respectively.
Sudhu Oraon, P.W. 4 has been tendered.
Chandranath Bhagat, P.W. 5 is the witness of seizure of blood stained soil, broken bangle pieces, from the place of occurrence and blood stained Lathi & blood stained white vest recovered from the house of the appellant. He has proved his signature on the seizure lists which are Ext.:- 2/12 and Ext.:- 2/13 respectively.
Pachchu Pahan, P.W. 6 is another witness of seizure of stone grinder and another stone weighing about 10 kgs. He has proved his signature on the seizure list, which has been ma
