Voice Sample Taken Without Magistrate's Nod Doesn't Invalidate Conviction if Chain of Evidence is Complete & No Prejudice is Caused: Chhattisgarh HC - 2025-06-30

Latest Legal Developments.

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Murder Case, Rules Procedural Defect in Voice Sample Collection Not Fatal to Prosecution

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh - The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the life imprisonment sentence for two men convicted of a brutal murder, ruling that a procedural lapse in collecting voice sample evidence does not automatically vitiate a conviction when the overall chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and points conclusively to the accused's guilt.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed the criminal appeal filed by Rahul Sahu and Sesh Kumar @ Sajan, who were convicted for murder, criminal conspiracy, and destruction of evidence by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara.

Case Background

The case stems from the discovery of an unidentified body near a drain in December 2022. The deceased was later identified as Anand Sahu . The investigation revealed that the appellants, along with a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), had conspired to murder the deceased. The prosecution's case, built entirely on circumstantial evidence, suggested that the motive was a love triangle involving a woman (PW24), with whom both the deceased and the CCL were allegedly involved.

The investigation uncovered that the deceased was last seen with the CCL. The police recovered call recordings from the phone of appellant Sesh Kumar, which contained conversations detailing the conspiracy. The trial court convicted the appellants based on the last seen theory, recovery of incriminating articles based on their disclosure statements, FSL reports, and matching voice sample evidence.

Appellants' Arguments: A Flawed Investigation?

The primary contention raised by the appellants' counsel, Mr. Uttam Pandey , was the illegality of the voice sample evidence. He argued that the police had collected the voice samples of the accused without obtaining prior permission from a Judicial Magistrate, a requirement established by the Supreme Court in landmark cases like Ritesh Sinha v. State of Uttar Pradesh . This, he claimed, was a fatal flaw that rendered the entire prosecution case invalid.

High Court's Analysis: Chain of Evidence Prevails Over Procedural Defect

The High Court meticulously analyzed the chain of evidence presented by the prosecution. It noted that the circumstances formed an unbroken sequence pointing towards the appellants' guilt:

1. Homicidal Death : The post-mortem report confirmed the death was a homicide caused by multiple severe injuries.

2. Motive: Witness testimonies established a clear motive related to a love affair.

3. Last Seen: The deceased was last seen in the company of the CCL, an accomplice of the appellants.

4. Conspiracy & Recoveries: The appellants' and the CCL's memorandum statements led to the recovery of the murder weapon (a knife), clothes, and mobile phones used in the crime.

5. Scientific Evidence: FSL reports confirmed that the soil from the crime scene matched the soil found on the appellants' shoes.

Addressing the crucial issue of the voice sample, the Court acknowledged the procedural defect. However, it observed that the appellants had consented to giving their voice samples and never raised an objection during the trial or in their statements under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The Court held that a procedural defect cannot be the sole basis for acquittal if it does not cause a miscarriage of justice.

The judgment highlighted a key principle:

"It is the trite law that procedural defects in investigation or trial do not automatically lead to the acquittal of an accused, especially if those defects do not cause a miscarriage of justice. The accused cannot claim acquittal solely on grounds of faulty investigation."

The court further emphasized that the appellants failed to show that any prejudice was caused to them by the police collecting the sample instead of a magistrate, especially when their consent was on record.

The Final Verdict

Finding that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt through a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, the High Court concluded that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellants.

"From the perusal of such scientific evidences, not only it is clear that the appellants have hatched a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of deceased, but they conspired to commit the murder by talking on mobile phone with the CCL... Thus it is clear that the prosecution has proved its case against the Appellants," the bench ruled.

The appeal was dismissed, and the life sentences of Rahul Sahu and Sesh Kumar @ Sajan were affirmed. The appellants will continue to serve their sentences in jail.