Sunder Lal vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 8th of August, 2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 392/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon (CG). By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302, IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- with default sentence of additional RI for 3 months. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:--

Dead body of deceased-Vikram was found in his field on 25-5-2010. Merg intimation (Exh. P-1) was lodged by his son Laxman (P.W. 2). The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Exh. P-7) on the dead body of the deceased. Plain soil and blood stained soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo (Exh. P-9). The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem to Community Health Centre (CHC), Keshkal. The post-mortem examination was conducted and it was found that the death was on account of internal haemorrhage due to crush of left testicle and it was homicidal in nature. During the course of investigation, on 28-6-2010, the Investigating Officer, ASI-Dashrath Nagwanshi (P.W. 6), recorded confessional statement of the appellant (Exh. P-3) before five villagers including Ramnath Mandavi (P.W. 5). After completion of other formalities, charge-sheet was filed. Except the above alleged extra-judicial confession (Exh. P-3), there was absolutely no other incriminating evidence against the appellant. The learned Sessions Judge held the above circumstance to be incriminating and-convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.

Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. He has argued that the above solitary circumstance of alleged extra-judicial confession was wrongly accepted by the Sessions Judge as admittedly, it was made by the appellant to the Police Officer, who reduced it into writing in Exh. P-3. Therefore, conviction vitiates and same deserves to be set aside.

On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties at length, we have perused the records of the sessions case.

A perusal of Exh. P-3 would show that the Investigating Officer, ASI-Dashrath Nagwanshi (P.W. 6), by way of the said document prepared a Panchnama that the appellant made extra-judicial confession to him before five villagers. The document bears signatures of the villagers as also concerned Police Officer and thumb impression of the appellant. It is clear from the above document that at the time of recording, the above extra-judicial confession, the appellant was in custody of the police and his above confessional statement was recorded by (he Police Officer in his own handwriting.

Section 25 of the Evidence Act, 1872 makes it very clear that no confession made to a Police Officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence. It is well settled principle of law that any confessional statement given by accused before police is inadmissible in evidence and cannot be brought on record by the prosecution and is insufficient to convict the accused.

Ramnath (P.W. 5), a witness to the alleged confession, deposed that police had seized one stone from the appellant vide seizure memo (Exh. P-2), and the appellant had stated before him and many villagers that he had assaulted the deceased by stone. The confessional Panchnama is Exh. P-3, which bears his signature.

ASI-Dashrath Nagwanshi (P.W. 6) also deposed that he had written (scribed) the confessional Panchnama (Exh. P-3), which bears his signature. The evidence of above witnesses goes to show that the alleged confession was made by the appellant to the concerned Police Officer, and it was not at all admissible in evidence u/s 25 of the Evidence Act.

We are of the view that the learned Sessions Judge erred in law in convicting the appellant on the above solitary evidence of extra-judicial confession.

Except the above, there is no other evidence against the appellant.

For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the above solitary circumstance. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant u/s 302, IPC are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. It is stated that the appellant is in jail since 28-6-2010. He be released forthwith, if no required in any other case.