Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2025:CGHC:36439-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 707 of 2025 Maaujuddin S/o Yasim Sah, aged about 24 years R/o Village - Saitangar Toli, Chouki - Lodam, Police Station - Jashpur, District - Jashpur, Chhattisgarh, (Accused No. 2) --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station - Lailunga, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh CRA No. 1405 of 2024 --- Respondent Irsad Alam S/o Hasan Alam Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Saitagar Toli, Chowki Manora, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur, District Jashpur, C.G., At Present Address Noor Nagar, Ward No. 25 Ranchi, Police Station Purani Ranchi, District Ranchi (Jharkhand) --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through police of Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, C.G. --- Respondent For Appellant (CRA 707/2025) For Appellant (CRA 1405/2025) For Respondent/State : Ms. Sonia Kuldeep, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble S hri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2 8. 0 7 .202 5 1. Since the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and common impugned judgment, this Court is disposing of the same by a common judgment. 2. This criminal appeals under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) are directed against the impunged judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2024 passed by learned Additional Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District – Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
Legal Reasoning
No.33/2019, whereby the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following manner :- CONVICTION Under 392/120B of IPC RI for 10 years and fine of SENTENCE Under 397/34 of IPC Under 302/34 of IPC Under 201 of IPC Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one month RI for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one month RI for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one month RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for one month With a direction to run all the sentences concurrently 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.12.2018 at about 16:45 hrs., informant Rajesh Rathia (PW-1) appeared at the 3 Police Station Lalunga and informed that the small children of the village had gone to Dharam Singh's Tikra to pluck guava, when they saw the body of an unknown person, then they informed Guruvaru Rathia of the village. Guruvaru Rathia saw the dead body and informed other villagers about it. The said dead person was an unknown person, dark complexioned, strong body, age about 40 years, his body was bare and he had undergarment near the heels and there was an injury on the forehead and blood was oozing out. On the said information, retired Sub Inspector James Kujur (PW14) registered the Merg Intimation Ex.P-1 and sent the information to SDM Lalunga. On 08.12.2018 James Kujur (PW-14) issued notice (Ex.P-2) to the Panchans to remain present in the proceedings of the Map Panchayatnama of the dead body. In the presence of the Panchans, the proceedings of the Map Panchayatnama (Ex.P-3) were conducted and as the deceased appeared to have been murdered by hitting him on the eyebrows and the back of the head, Map Panchayatnama (Ex.P-3) was prepared, advising post-mortem of the dead body. 4. On 08.12.2018, the Investigating Officer James Kujur (PW-14) seized blood-soaked soil, plain soil and a 3.18 kg stone from the crime scene in the presence of witnesses Satyanarayan Sharma (PW-3) and Bhishmadev Sharma (PW-2) as per seizure sheet Ex.P-6, and on the same date, 1 beer bottle, 2 empty country liquor bottles, 2 plastic disposables which smelled of alcohol and 1 black iron hair band were seized at a distance of 45 steps from 4 the crime scene in the presence of the above two witnesses as per seizure sheet Ex.P-7. On the said date itself, the Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector James Kujur (PW-14) prepared the site map (Ex.P-5) and after returning to the police station, registered a First Information Report (Ex.P-22) against an unknown person under Crime No. 288/2018, Section 302 IPC of Police Station Lalunga. 5. The dead body of the deceased was sent to the Community Health Center Lalunga for postmortem through constable Nehru Ram No. 403 (PW-12) vide Ex.P-23, where the postmortem of the deceased was conducted on 08.12.2018 at 14:25 p.m. by Medical Officer Dr. Manoj Kumar Patel (PW-11) and while giving the postmortem report (Ex.P-19), he opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock caused by excessive bleeding due to injury caused by hitting the head with a hard and blunt object and the nature of his death was "homicidal" and the death appeared to have occurred within 48 hours from the post-mortem. On 08.12.2018, after post-mortem of the deceased, constable Nehru Ram No. 403 (PW-12) presented the femur bone of the right leg of the deceased provided by the doctor in a sealed packet at Police Station Lalunga and the same was seized by Sub-Inspector James Kujur (PW 14) in the presence of constable No. 277 Vibhuti Singh and Constable No. 131 Niranjan Minj. 6. On 09.12.2018, Sub-Inspector James Kujur (PW14) again visited the spot and prepared the site map Ex.P-4. On 14.12.2018, the 5 deceased's brother Jai Prakash Ekka (PW-6) identified the body as Ajay Kumar through the deceased's photograph, hair band and the tattoo of Kapila's name on his hand and prepared the identification panchanama Ex.P-8 in the presence of witnesses Kush Kumar Soni (PW5) and Ajeshwar Toppo (PW7). On identification of the body, the Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector James Kujur (PW-14) sent an application Ex.P-25 on 17.12.2018 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Lalunga for exhumation of the body of deceased Ajay Kumar Ekka. In view of which, on receipt of order Ex.P-17, Naib Tehsildar Balchandra Singh (PW-9) prepared Panchayatnama Ex.P-18 on 17.12.2018 at 04:00 pm and got the body exhumed in front of witnesses. After exhumation of the body, the deceased's brother Jaiprakash Ekka identified the body as Ajay Kumar Ekka, in relation to which a Panchnama Ex.P-19A was prepared. After exhumation and seizure proceedings, the body of the deceased was handed over to his relative Jaiprakash Ekka by Sub-Inspector James Kujur (PW-14) as per the delivery deed Ex.P-26. 7. Sub-inspector James Kujur (PW14) sent a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh through the station in- charge B. Ekka to obtain CDR/IMEI SDR details of mobile numbers 7440799803, 8987843055, 35171-8068057307 and 6203526675. On 20.12.2018, Sub-inspector James Kujur recorded the memorandum of accused Irshad Alam in Noor Nagar, Old Ranchi in front of witnesses Ajeshwar Toppo (PW-7) 6 and Amit Kujur (PW8). On the same date at 12.30 pm, a white colour Bolero SLX vehicle number CG-15-B-3074, a black colour Jio mobile set with IMEI number 911612855265997 in which Jio SIM number 6203526675 was used and later the SIM was thrown away, a black colour Nokia mobile set with IMEI numbers 358919072974222 and 358919072974230 were seized from accused Irshad Alam in the presence of Ajeshwar Toppo (PW-7) and Amit Kujur (PW-8). 8. Memorandum of accused Maazuddin Ex.P-10 was recorded by Sub-Inspector James Kujur (PW-14) on 20.12.2018 at 17:30 hrs. in village Lodam in front of witnesses Ajeshwar Toppo (PW-7) and Amit Kujur (PW-8) and on the identification of the said accused, on 20.12.2018 at 16:00 hrs., a white colour Intex mobile with touch screen bearing IMEI number 911475553153330, in which the deceased's mobile without SIM card is in the name of Kapila Ekka, was seized in front of witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P-12. On 20.12.2018, accused Irshad Alam, Maazuddin and Safarullah Sah were arrested by Sub-Inspector James Kujur (PW-14) in the presence of witnesses Ajeshwar Toppo (PW-7) and Amit Kujur (PW-8) as per arrest memo Ex.P-14, Ex.P-15 and Ex.P-16 respectively and information regarding their arrest was given to their family members Ex.P-27. 9.
Legal Reasoning
On 07.01.2019, Ms. Kapila Ekka presented the RC of Bolero SLX vehicle number CG-15-B-3074, which is in the name of Kapila Ekka, at Lalunga Police Station. As per seizure memo Ex.P-13, it 7 was seized in front of witnesses Ajeshwar Toppo (PW-7) and Sandeep Toppo. Sub-inspector James Kujur (PW-14) sent a written complaint Ex.P-20A to the Medical Officer Lalunga for querry of the seized stone in the case. In view of this, Dr. Manoj Kumar Patel (PW-11) on 11.01.2019 at 12:55 pm examined the said stone and while giving the querry report Ex.P-20, stated that the injuries mentioned by Ajay Kumar Ekka in his PM report were caused by the said stone sent to him for querry. The stone was sealed again and handed over to constable Niranjan Minj. The seized stone and soil in the case were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Bilaspur for chemical testing, regarding which the written complaint is Ex.P-28 and the chemical test report is Ex.P-29. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. After completing the necessary investigation, chargesheet No.12/2019 was presented against the accused under Sections 302, 397, 120B, 201, 34 IPC before the Court - Judicial Magistrate First Class Gharghoda, District - Raigarh (CG), which was surrendered by order dated 18.06.2019, which after surrender was received by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ghargoda, District - Raigarh for due consideration. 10. When the charges were framed against accused Irshad Alam and Maazuddin under sections 392/120B, 397/34, 302/34 and 201 IPC and against accused Safarullah Shah under section 392/120B IPC, they denied the crime and demanded trial. 11. In support of its case, the prosecution has produced witnesses 8 village sarpanch Rajesh Rathiya (PW1), Bhishmadev Sharma (PW2), Satyanarayan Sharma (PW3), Gurubaru Rathiya (PW4), Kush Kumar Soni (PW5), Jaiprakash Ekka (PW6), Ajeshwar Toppo (PW7), Amit Kujur (PW8), Naib Tehsildar Balchandra Singh (PW9), Deenbandhu (PW10), Medical Officer Dr. Manoj Kumar Patel (PW-11), Constable Nehru Ram (PW-12), Tankeshwar Bhagat (PW-13), Sub-Inspector James Kujur (PW- 14) and Head Constable Laxmi Narayan Kaivartya (PW-15) have been recorded and Meg Intimation Ex.P-1, Section 175 Cr.P.C. Notice of seizure Ex.P-2, Map Panchayatnama Ex.P-3, Sightseeing map Exs.P-4 and P-5 respectively, Seizure note regarding seizure of blood stained soil, plain soil, blood stained stone used in the incident Ex.P-6, Seizure note regarding seizure of one beer bottle, two empty Desi Mandira plain bottles, two liquor odor plastic disposals, one black colored iron hair belt Ex.P-7, Identification Panchnama of deceased Ajay Kumar Ekka Ex.P-8, Memorandum statement of accused Irshad Alam Ex.P-9, Memorandum statement of accused Maazuddin Ex.P-10, Seizure note regarding seizure of one white colored Bolero vehicle number CG-15-B-3074, one Jio mobile, one Nokia company mobile Ex.P-11, Seizure note regarding seizure of Intex mobile, Ex.P-12, Seizure memo regarding seizure of RC book of seized Bolero vehicle number CG-15-B-3074, Ex.P-13, Arrest memo of accused Irshad Alam, Ex.P-14, Arrest memo of accused Muazuddin, Ex.P-15, Arrest memo of accused Safarullah Sah, Ex.P-16, Order memo of Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Lalunga, 9 Ex.P-17, Panchnama of exhumation place, Ex.P-18, Body identification report, Ex.P-19A, Postmortem report, Ex.P-19, query report Ex.P-20, written complaint sent for query of the seized stone used in the incident Ex.P-20A, seizure memo regarding seizure of femur bone of the right leg of the deceased in a sealed packet Ex.P-21, First Information Report Ex.P-22, written complaint sent for post-mortem Ex.P-23, duty certificate Ex.P-24, written complaint sent for exhumation of the body Ex.P-25, body delivery letter Ex.P-26, information regarding arrest of the accused Ex.P-27, written complaint sent for chemical test of the seized articles Ex.P-28, chemical test report of the seized articles Ex.P-29, dispatch complaint No. 43 dated 19.12.2018 Ex.P-30, return complaint No. 33 dated 20.12.2018 Ex.P-31 have been submitted. 12. When the accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., they denied having produced any witness in their defence, claiming that they were innocent and that they had been falsely implicated. 13. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 12.07.2024, while acquitting accused Safarullah Sah convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants Maaujudin and Irsad Alam as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, these criminal appeals have been preferred by the accused/appellant under Section 415(2) of BNSS. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the judgment and 10 sentence passed by the learned trial Court is bad both on facts and in law. They further submit that conviction of the accused/appellants are solely based on their memorandum statements and recovery of alleged vehicle and mobile phone of the deceased, but both the witnesses of memorandum and seizure have not supported the case of prosecution and they were turned hostile, even in the case, the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged Bolero vehicle number CG 15-B-3074, registered in the name of Ms. Kapila Ekka, which the deceased used to drive on booking, has been seized from accused Irshad Alam on the basis of his memorandum and the mobile phone of the deceased has been seized from accused Maazuddin on the basis of his memorandum statement. They would also submit that the trial Court erred in ignoring the fact that the dead body was found from the open place. The prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence. As such, conviction without any evidence is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. 15. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposed the aforesaid submissions and would submit that unnatural death of the deceased Ajay Kumar Ekka has been proved by Dr. Manoj Kumar Patel (PW-11), who in turn opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock caused by excessive bleeding due to injury caused by hitting the head with a hard and blunt object and 11 the nature of his death was "homicidal" through his report Ex.P-19. He would further submit that Investigating Officer James Kujur (PW-14) recorded memorandum statement (Ex.P-9) of accused Irsad Alam and at his instance, one white colored Bolero vehicle number CG-15-B-3074, one Jio mobile, one Nokia company mobile were seized vide Ex.P-11 and he further recorded memoramdum statement (Ex.P-10) of accused Maaujuddin and at his instance, one Intex mobile was seized vide Ex.P-12. He further submits that though he independent & attesting witnesses Ajeshwar Toppo (PW-7) and Amit Kujur (PW8) have not supported the case of prosecution, but they have proved their signature on the memorandum statement and seizure of the accused. Investigating Officer (PW-14) has also proved the same in the form of documentary evidence. The learned trial Court has appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and has recorded the finding of the guilt of accused/appellants, as such, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 16. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 17. Conviction of the accused-appellants is substantially based on memorandum statement (Ex.P-9) of accused Irsad Alam, seizure of one white colored Bolero vehicle number CG-15-B-3074, one Jio mobile, one Nokia company mobile at his instance vide Ex.P-11 and memoramdum statement (Ex.P-10) of accused 12 Maaujuddin and seizure one Intex mobile at his instance vide Ex.P-12. 18. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Ajay Kumar Ekka was homicidal in nature ? 19. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr. Manoj Kumar Patel (PW-13), who conducted postmortem over the dead body of the deceased and given its report vide Ex.P-19, has come to the conclusion that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock caused by excessive bleeding due to injury caused by hitting the head with a hard and blunt object and the nature of his death was "homicidal". 20. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Ajay Kumar Ekka was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding. 21. The next question for consideration would be, whether recovery of one white colored Bolero vehicle number CG-15- B-3074, one Jio mobile, one Nokia company mobile at the instance accused Irsad Alam vide Ex.P-11 on the basis of memoramdum statement (Ex.P-9) and recovery of one Intex 13 mobile at the instance of accused Maaujuddin vide Ex.P-12 are admissible and it can be used against them or not ? 22. In the present case, there is no direct evidence / eyewitness available on record. The trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of his memorandum statement followed by recovery of alleged vehicle and mobile phones. 23. Memorandum statement (Ex.P-9) of the appellant Irsad Alam and memorandum statement (Ex.P-10) of the appellant Maaujuddin have been proved by the Investigating Officer James Kujur (PW- 14) and on that basis, the appellants have been convicted. 24. A careful perusal of memorandum statement (Ex.P-9) of the appellant Irsad Alam would show that it has been recorded by Investigating Officer James Kujur (PW-14) in Noor Nagar, Old Ranchi in front of witnesses Ajeshwar Toppo (PW-7) and Amit Kujur (PW8), in which the appellant Irsad Alam was said to have stated that he along with co-accused Maaujuddin had booked the alleged Bolero vehicle of the deceased Ajay Kumar Ekka from Ambikapur on rent with the help of acquitted accused Safarullah Sah and gone to Lailunga, wherefrom they purchased one beer bottle and two bottle of plain liquor and left for village Karrahan and took the vehicle at some distance away from the basti towards Bhadra and after getting down all three drank liquor and in the disposable glass of vehicle driver mixed some sleeping pills and asked for the vehicle and when he denied, then both of them 14 slammed the driver on the ground due to which he got injured at the back of his head and fell unconscious, thereafter they both dragged towards a pit and pressed his neck and Maaujuddin hit him with a big stone lying there near his left eye and after killing him they left the said stone there and fled by the said vehicle. Further from perusal of memorandum statement (Ex.P-10) of the appellant Maaujuddin, same story is reflected. 25. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as under: - “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” 26. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. 27. The Supreme Court in the matter of Asar Mohammad and others v. State of U.P.1 with reference to the word “fact” employed in Section 27 of the Evidence Act has held that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”. It has been further held that the 1 AIR 2018 SC 5264 15 discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place and it includes a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. Their Lordships relying upon the decision of the Privy Council in the matter of Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor2 observed as under: - “13. It is a settled legal position that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. It includes a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. It will be useful to advert to the exposition in the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2015) 1 SCC 253, in particular, paragraph 23 thereof. The same read thus: “23. While accepting or rejecting the factors of discovery, certain principles are to be kept in mind. The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor (supra) has held thus: (IA p. 77) “... it is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered’ within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered 2 AIR 1947 PC 67 16 embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that ‘I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house’ does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 28. Reverting to the facts of the case in light of the principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Asar Mohammad (supra), only discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and knowledge of the accused as to this extent would be admissible and incriminating part of the accused 17 statement that they had inflicted injuries to deceased Ajay Kumar Ekka would not be admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 29. The Supreme Court in the matter of Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar3 has clearly held that confession to police whether in course of investigation or otherwise and confession made while in police custody would be hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and observed as under:- “9. Section 25 of the Evidence Act is one of the provisions of law dealing with confessions made by an accused. The law relating to confessions is to be found generally in Ss. 24 to 30 of the Evidence Act and Ss. 162 and 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Sections 17 to 31 of the Evidence Act are to be found under the heading "Admissions". Confession is a species of admission, and is dealt with in Ss. 24 to 30. A confession or an admission is evidence against the maker of it, unless its admissibility is excluded by some provision of law. Section 24 excludes confessions caused by certain inducements, threats and promises. Section 25 provides : "No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of an offence." The terms of S. 25 are imperative. A confession made to a police officer under any circumstances is not admissible in evidence against the accused. It covers a confession made when he was free and not in police custody, as also a confession made before any investigation has 3 AIR 1966 SC 119 18 begun. The expression "accused of any offence" covers a person accused of an offence at the trial whether or not he was accused of the offence when he made the confession. Section 26 prohibits proof against any person of a confession made by him in the custody of a police officer, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. The partial ban imposed by S. 26 relates to a confession made to a person other than a police officer. Section 26 does not qualify the absolute ban imposed by S. 25 on a confession made to a police officer. Section 27 is in the form of a proviso, and partially lifts the ban imposed by Ss. 24, 25 and 26. It provides that when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved. Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure forbids the use of any statement made by any person to a police officer in the course of an investigation for any purpose at any enquiry or trial in respect of the offence under investigation, save as mentioned in the proviso and in cases falling under sub-section (2), and it specifically provides that nothing in it shall be deemed to affect the provisions of S. 27 of the Evidence Act. The words of S. 162 are wide enough to include a confession made to a police officer in the course of an investigation. A statement or confession made in the course of an investigation may be recorded by a Magistrate under S. 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure subject to the safeguards imposed by the section. Thus, except 19 as provided by S. 27 of the Evidence Act, a confession by an accused to a police officer is absolutely protected under S.25 of the Evidence Act, and if it is made in the course of an investigation, it is also protected by S. 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and a confession to any other person made by him while in the custody of a police officer is protected by S. 26, unless it is made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate. These provisions seem to proceed upon the view that confessions made by an accused to a police officer or made by him while he is in the custody of a police officer are not to be trusted, and should not be used in evidence against him. They are based upon grounds of public policy, and the fullest effect should be given to them.” Their Lordships further held as under:- “18. If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by S. 25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of S. 25 is lifted by S.27” 30. In the case in hand, confessional statements Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 made by the appellants before the police officer is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and no part of it is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. As such, we are of the 20 considered opinion that alleged memorandum statements of the appellants Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and no part of it is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act in view of decisions rendered by Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya (supra) followed by the the Supreme Court in Asar Mohammad (supra). Even otherwise, the prosecution has failed to prove that the alleged Bolero vehicle number CG 15- B-3074, registered in the name of Ms. Kapila Ekka, which the deceased used to drive on booking, has been seized from accused Irshad Alam on the basis of his memorandum and the mobile phone of the deceased has been seized from accused Maazuddin on the basis of his memorandum statement. 31. For the foregoing discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused/appellants and the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. Having regard to the totality of the material on record and on facts and circumstances of this case, it is not possible for this Court to agree with the concurrent conclusions reached by the trial Court. 32. In the result, both the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.07.2024 is set aside. The appellants are acquitted from all the charges leveled against them. 21 33. It is stated that appellants Maazuddin and Irsad Alam are in jail. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 34. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of BNSS), appellants- Maazuddin and Irsad Alam are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 35. The Trial Court record alongwith the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra