Allowed

Sukhchand @ Mosu and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC24 Jul 2023CRA/753/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Murder convictions based on alleged extra-judicial confessions and circumstantial evidence were overturned. The Court found no established confession, no useful recovery evidence and insufficient basis in motive alone. Both appeals were allowed, with benefit of doubt and immediate release unless required in another matter.

What did the court decide?

Convictions under Section 302/34 IPC overturned with benefit of doubt; all appellants directed to be released forthwith unless required in another matter.

Sukhchand @ Mosu and Anr. Vs State Of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 497 of 2015

¶6

Udaynath @ Mosu S/o Chanduram, aged about 26 years, R/o Village Cholnar Chowki Bastar P.S. Kotwali Jagdalpur Revenue and Civil District Bastar, Chhattigarh.

¶7

---- Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Kotwali District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

---- Respondent

¶11

For Appellant :- Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. For State/Respondent :- Mr. Sameer Oraon, Government Advocate.

¶12

CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶13

1.Sukhchand @ Mosu S/o Bhagchand, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Chote Dewda, present address Village Cholnaar, Police Station Kotwali, Post Jagdalpur, Civil and Revenue District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

2.Amarjeet Poyyam S/o Dhoyasu Poyyam, aged about 21 years, R/o Village Pandripani, Police Station Parpa, Civil and Revenue District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

---- Appellants

¶16

Versus

¶17

State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Jagdalpur, Civil and Revenue District Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶18

¶19

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶20

---- Respondent

¶21

For Appellants :- Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate. For State/Respondent :- Mr. Sameer Oraon, Governemnt Advocate.

¶22

Division Bench

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶24

Judgment On Board (24.07.2023)

¶25

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶26

Since these two criminal appeals have arisen out of the same

¶27

impugned judgment dated 18.03.2015 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar, at Jadgalpur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 7/2015, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

¶28

Two appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 753 of 2015 namely Sukhchand @ Mosu (A-1) and Amarjeet Poyyam (A-3) and the sole appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 497 of 2015 namely Udaynath @ Mosu (A-2); all have preferred these two appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC calling in question the validity, legality and correctness of the impugned judgment whereby each of them has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of ₹ 1000/- each; in default of payment of fine, further

¶29

¶30

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶31

rigorous imprisonment for two months.

¶32

Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on the date of offence i.e. 06.11.2014 at 1:00 am at village Chhotedewda, Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur, C.G. in furtherance of their common intention, Udaynath (A-2) and Amarjeet (A-3) assaulted deceased – Rainu by bamboo stick by which he fell down on the ground and thereafter, Udaynath (A-2) strangulated his neck by wooden stick and Sukhchand @ Mosu (A-1) assaulted on his cheek by knife (iron kadari) by which he suffered grievous injuries and died and thereby committed the aforesaid offence.

¶33

It is further case of the prosecution that deceased Rainu was the uncle of complainant Phulsingh (PW-1). On the fateful night a play was organized on the occasion of Kartik Purnima and appellants went to the house of Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13), neighbour of the deceased, to watch the play. They had taken meal in the house of Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13) and thereafter, appellants herein went to watch the play and Phulsingh (PW-1) also went to watch the play. Between the play, Sitaram Nag (not examined) had announced that a man was lying near the road in injured condition. After hearing the said announcement Phulsingh (PW-1) went to the spot and saw the badly injured dead body his deceased uncle Rainu. On being asked, A-3 informed Jaya Baghel (PW-11), wife of Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13), that he

¶34

¶35

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶36

had seen A-1 assaulting deceased Rainu and thereafter A-2 ran away from the spot. FIR and Merg Intimation were registered vide Ex.P/1 & Ex.P/2. Nazari Naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex. P/23 and the dead body was sent for postmortem to Maha rani Hospital, Jagdalpur. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/20) conducted by Dr. Pawan Tekade (PW-5), cause of death was due to injuries on head, face and neck and nature of death is homicidal. Pursuant to memorandum statement of A-1 (Ex.P/6), knife (iron kadari) has been seized vide Ex.P/7. Pant, shirt, lungi, bamboo stick and slipper have also been seized vide Exs.P/10, 11, 12 & 18. All the articles were sent for chemical analysis to the FSL. In the FSL report (Ex.C/1) on articles F1 (shirt of A-3), G1 (shirt of A-2), G2 (lungi of A-2) & H (shirt of A-1) blood has been found but it has not been proved that the blood found on articles is human blood and on article “I” i.e. knife (iron kadari) blood has not been found.

¶37

After due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellants / accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence.

¶38

In order to bring home the offence prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 38 documents and defence

¶39

¶40

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶41

in support of its case has not examined any witness but examined three documents (Exs.D/1 to 3).

¶42

The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellants / accused persons for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which these appeals have been preferred questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶43

Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, and Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellants, submit that appellants have falsely been implicated in crime in question and they have been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record. They also submit that the appellants herein have been convicted mainly on the basis of so-called extra judicial confession made before Jaya Baghel (PW-11) and Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13) but, if the evidence of Jaya Baghel (PW-11) and Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13) is considered, it is apparent that no such extra judicial confession was made, at least by A-1 & A-2. It has also been argued that the other piece of evidence against the appellants is that of the seizure of their bloodstained clothes and

¶44

the FSL report is positive, but it has not been proved that the blood found on the clothes of the appellants is human blood and the statement of the investigating officer about seizure becomes

¶45

¶46

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶47

doubtful. It has been further argued that the appellants are in jail since 10.11.2014 and there is no direct evidence against the appellants and the trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of surmises and conjectures, as such, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and appellants deserve to be acquitted.

¶48

On the other hand, Mr. Sameer Oraon, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that bloodstained clothes of the accused persons have been seized and the FSL report (Ex.C/1) is positive and no explanation has been offered by the appellants in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in this regard, therefore, the instant appeals deserve to be dismissed.

¶49

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶50

The first question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded the finding in affirmative on the basis of postmortem report (Ex.P/20) which is proved by Dr. Pawan Tekade (PW-5)

¶51

¶52

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶53

which is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶54

Now, the next question for consideration would be the appellants are authors of the crime in question?

¶55

The case of the prosecution is based on the extra judicial confession given by the appellants to Jaya Baghel (PW-11) and Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13) and pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-1, knife (iron kadari) has been seized on which blood has not been found in FSL report (Ex.C/1). The trial Court has recorded its finding in para 19 of its judgment, which reads as under:-

¶56

“19.अभभययजनददरदपसत समसतगवदहहक क सदकयक क पररशशलनक क पशचदत यहभनषकर र पदयदजदतदह ह भकजजसरदतरन ह न ककम म तय त ह ह ईथश , उसरदतननट द क खन क क क जलएआरयपशगणआय क ह ह य क थ क ।सदकशशशमतशजयदबघ क लएव व खग क शवर बघ क लक क कथनहस क यहभशप त भषहयतदह ह भकआरयपशगणकदभववददरन ह न क क घर क क दशवदलस क लग क लकडशकयभनक क लकरआगजलदन क औरतदपन क ककघटनदक क कदरणह ह आथद , तथदइनगवदहयक क कथनहस क यहबदतसपषहयतदह ह भक , रहनन क क सदथआरयपशमयस न उर स त खच व दककमदरपशटह ह ईथश।इसकदसमथ र न घटनदसथलस क जपबनसक क डणड , जयभकघटनदस क प न व र आरयपशमयस न उर र स त खच व दक क पदसकमलशबदईददरदद क खदजदनदबतदयदगयदह , तथदजपश त दद चदक न क क भचभकतसशयपररकणस क चयटकदररतहयनदडनकटरददरदस व भदभवत बतदयदगयदह , स क हयतशह। ह "

¶57

Extra Judicial Confession

¶58

14.It is the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence,

¶59

¶60

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶61

intends to base a conviction on an extra judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the Court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the Court would be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. [ See : Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu 1 ]

¶62

15.In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered the earlier decisions including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 2 and pertinently laid down the principle in paragraphs 15.1, 15.8 and 16 as under :-

¶63

“15.1. In Balwinder Singh (supra) this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10)

¶64

“10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.”

¶65

15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words

¶66

1 (2012) 6 SCC 403

¶67

2 1995 Supp (4) SCC 259

¶68

¶69

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶70

of the witnesses must be clear, unambigous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B.³ and Pancho v. State of Haryana⁴ .)

¶71

The principles

¶72

Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These percepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused :

¶73

(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.

¶74

(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

¶75

(iii) It should inspire confidence.

¶76

(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

¶77

(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

3 (2011) 11 SCC 754

4 (2011) 10 SCC 165

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶82

(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law. ”

¶83

The principle of law laid down in Sahadevan (supra) has further been followed with approval in the matter of Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 5 and very recently in the matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar 6 wherein the following principle of law has been laid down by their Lordships in paragraph 5 of the report :-

¶84

“ EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRA-JUDICIAL CONFESSION

¶85

As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility. ”

¶86

17.In the matter of Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of West

¶87

Bengal7 , principles of law have been laid down by their Lordships qua evidentiary value of extra judicial confession in paragraphs 13 & 15 as under:-

¶88

5 Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018, judgment dated 16/03/2023

¶89

6 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

¶90

7 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 171

¶91

¶92

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶93

13.The trial Court observed that where the prosecution case is entirely based on extra-judicial confession and the prosecution seeks conviction of the accused on that extrajudicial confession, the evidence of the witnesses before whom the alleged confessional statement was made, requires a greater scrutiny to pass the test of credibility.

¶94

It is a settled principle of law that extra-judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. It has been held that where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance. It has further been held that it is wellsettled that it is a rule of caution where the court would generally look for an independent reliable corroboration before placing any reliance upon such extra-judicial confession. It has been held that there is no doubt that conviction can be based on extra-judicial confession, but in the very nature of things, it is a weak piece of evidence. Reliance in this respect could be placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sahadevan and Another v. State of Tamil Nadu (2012) 6 SCC 403. This Court, in the said case, after referring to various earlier judgments on the point, observed thus:

¶95

Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extrajudicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused:

¶96

(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.

¶97

(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

¶98

(iii) It should inspire confidence.

¶99

(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater

¶100

¶101

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶102

credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported 2 (2012) 6 SCC 403 by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

¶103

(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

¶104

(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.”

¶105

The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and the trial Court has found the incriminating circumstances established. The five golden principles which constitute panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of

¶106

Maharashtra 8 in which in paragraph 153 it has been as under: -

¶107

A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established :

¶108

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

¶109

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra⁹ where the following observations were made:

¶110

Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused

¶111

8 (1984) 4 SCC 116

¶112

9 (1973) 2 SCC 793

¶113

¶114

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶115

must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

¶116

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

¶117

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

¶118

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

¶119

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

¶120

19.Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their

¶121

Lordships of the Supreme Court qua the extra judicial confession and with regard to the five golden principles relating to proof of circumstantial evidence, it is quite vivid that the trial Court has convicted the appellants herein based on the extra judicial confession given by one of the appellants to Jaya Baghel (PW11) and she has been declared hostile. A careful perusal of the statement of Jaya Baghel (PW-11) would show that she has only stated that on the fateful night, all the appellants came to her house and taken meal along with her husband Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13) and thereafter, they had gone outside to watch play and she along with her husband were sleeping. Meanwhile, Jaya Baghel (PW-11) and Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13) have

¶122

¶123

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶124

heard the noise and came outside from the house and saw the dead body of the deceased and on being asked A-3 informed to Jaya Baghel (PW-11) that A-1 has assaulted deceased Rainu by bamboo stick and thereafter, she has been subjected to crossexamination and stated that all the appellants have took out the wood from the house of deceased Rainu and on that count dispute arose between them. She has clearly stated that she has not witnessed the incident and A-3 has informed that A-1 & A-2 had assaulted Rainu by which he suffered grievous injuries and died, as such, she is a hearsay witness qua the incident and A-3 had not given extra judicial confession to Jaya Baghel (PW-11) that he has killed Rainu, therefore, the statement of Jaya Baghel (PW-11) is of no use to the prosecution except that she has seen

¶125

the appellants taking out the wood from the wall of house of deceased Rainu.

¶126

Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13), husband of Jaya Baghel (PW-11),

¶127

has made similar statement before the Court as made by Jaya Baghel (PW-11) and he has also been declared hostile. He has stated that all the appellants had come to their house and after taking meal they have gone to watch play and he was sleeping in his house and thereafter, only A-3 came to his house and informed him that Rainu (deceased) has been killed, as such, Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13) has not clearly stated that any of

¶128

¶129

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶130

the accused persons including A-3 has given extra judicial confession that any of them had killed Rainu (deceased), therefore, the evidence of this witness is also of no use to the prosecution. As such, in our considered opinion, no extra judicial confession has been made by the appellants herein to Jaya Baghel (PW-11) and Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13) which can be relied upon to convict the appellants herein for the aforesaid offence, as the extra judicial confession should be true and voluntary and it should be corroborated in order to acquire credibility.

¶131

The next piece of evidence that has been relied upon by the prosecution is that from the possession of A-1 knife has been seized on which as per the FSL report (Ex.C/1) blood has not been found. On the clothes of all the appellants, which were seized, blood has been found but it could not be proved that same is human blood. In that view of the matter, seizure of knife and clothes from the possession of A-1 is of no use to the prosecution.

¶132

The other evidence which has been relied upon by the prosecution is that the bloodstained bamboo stick has been recovered from the spot but it has not been recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellants and even it is not established that blood was found on the bamboo stick is human

¶133

¶134

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶135

blood. The Supreme Court in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and another 10 held that if the recovery of

¶136

bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood and held in Para-24 as under:-

¶137

“24.In the instant case, then, we could have placed some reliance on the recovery, had the prosecution at least proved that the blood was of human origin. As observed supra, while discussing the evidence of PWs 9 and 16, the prosecution has tried to concoct the case from stage to stage. Hence, in the absence of positive material indicating that the stained blood was of human origin and of the same blood group as that of the accused, it would be difficult for the Court to rely upon the aspect of recovery of the weapons and tabbal, and such recovery does not help the case of the prosecution.”

¶138

Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mani v. State of

¶139

Tamil Nadu11 , considering the nature, scope and applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has held that discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and has observed the following in paragraph 26 of the judgment :-

¶140

“26. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the

¶141

10 (2019) 7 SCC 781

¶142

11 (2009) 17 SCC 273

¶143

¶144

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶145

discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case. We have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the house where alleged bloodstains were found belonged exclusively or was possessed exclusively by the appellant, we have further pointed out that the discovery was absolutely farcical. There is one other very relevant factor ignored by both the courts that the prosecution never made any attempts to prove that the clothes belonged to the appellants. There is literally no evidence to suggest anything to that effect. Therefore, even if we accept the discovery, it does not take us anywhere near the crime. Both the courts below have ignored this very important aspect. Once these two important circumstances are disbelieved, there is nothing which would remain to support the prosecution theory.”

¶146

Next piece of evidence is the motive that has been proved by Jaya Baghel (PW-11) that all three appellants taken out the wood from the wall of the house of deceased Rainu, which is used for bonfire, even though motive is held to be proved but it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Subramanya v. State of Karnataka 12 that motive cannot be made basis for conviction for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

¶147

Returning to the facts of the case in the light of the aforesaid discussion, it is quite vivid that the extra-judicial confession made to Jaya Baghel (PW-11) and Khageshwar Baghel (PW-13) is not established from their statements and even otherwise there is no corroboration of the extra-judicial confession, in fact there was no extra-judicial confession made by the appellants herein to Jaya Baghel (PW-11) and Khageshwar Baghel, (PW-13). Further, as

¶148

12 AIR 2022 SC 5110

¶149

¶150

CRA No. 497 of 2015 & CRA No. 753 of 2015

¶151

per the FSL report (Ex.C/1), on knife (iron kadari) blood has not been found and on clothes and bamboo stick no human blood was found. In view of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Balwan Singh (supra) & Mani (supra), recovery is no use to the prosecution. Motive cannot be basis for conviction of appellants for offence under Section 302 of the IPC in veiw of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Subramanya (supra). Consequently, we are unable to uphold the conviction of the appellants for offence under Section 302/34

¶152

of the IPC and they are entitled for benefit of doubt. The appellants are reported to be in jail since 10.11.2014, we direct that they be released from the jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter.

¶153

These criminal appeals are allowed .

¶154

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and to the Superintendent of Jail where he is lodged and suffering jail sentence, forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.

¶155

Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶156

Ankit

Sukhchand @ Mosu and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sukhchand @ Mosu and Anr. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kalu @ Rohit Chijwani Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Kuldip Kumar Solanki Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Jai Kishan @ Mantu Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Deokumar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sanjeev Kumar Bharti Vs Union of India

Udaynath @ Mosu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh