Sahdev Sardar, S/o Nimai Sardar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o P.V. - 04, Vivekanand v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Pakhanjur, District
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7255 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1383 of 2019 Sahdev Sardar, S/o Nimai Sardar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o P.V. - 04, Vivekanand Nagar, Police Station - Pakhanjur District - Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Pakhanjur, District - Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---Respondent CRA No. 1380 of 2019 Sarvadas, S/o Shri Sachin Das, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Village - P.V. 118 Ratanpur, Thana - Pakhanjur, Distt. - North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant State Of Chhattisgarh Through, Through the District Magistrate, Kanker Distt. - North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Sumit Shrivastava and Mr. Mukesh For State/ Respondent : Mr. Ratan Pusty, G.A. Shrivastava, Advocates D.B. : Hon'ble Shri Justic e Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal 2 Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 10.02.2025 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District-North Baster Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.20/2018, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In Criminal Appeal No.1383/2019, preferred by Sahdev Sardar, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of Indian Penal R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-,in code default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 1 year (Fine amount has been deposited) Under Section 201/34 of Indian R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. Penal Code 1000/-, in default of payment of fine (Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently) 3 months additional R.I. And, in Criminal Appeal No.1380/2019, preferred by Sarvadas, he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 201/34 of Indian R.I. for 03 years and fine of Rs. Penal code 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months. (Fine amount has been deposited) 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 13.03.2018, an 3 information was received by Thakur Goldar (PW/9) from the Appellant -Sahdev Sardar that the deceased Padmavati, who was his maternal aunt, has died owing to abdominal decease. After receiving the said information, merg intimation (Ex.P/24) was lodged by him (PW/9) before the Police Station, Pakhanjur, District- Kanker on 21.03.2018 and based upon which, the first information report (Ex.P/25) was registered on the same day against the appellants with regard to the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 of IPC. 3. Based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P/1) of Appellant-Sahdev, spectacle was received from 5 meter away from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex.P/3), while ash of Gamcha was recovered from him vide seizure memo (Ex.P/5) and, based upon the disclosure statement (Ex.P/2) of Appellant-Sarvadas, a vehicle-Bolero, bearing registration No.CG-19-D-0240 was recovered from him vide seizure memo (Ex.P/6). The inquest of the dead body was made vide Ex.P10 and, was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. D.K. Sinha (PW/10), who vide his report (Ex.P/29) opined the cause of death to be cardio respiratory failure and, after recording the statement of the prosecution witnesses, the investigating officer has submitted his charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial First Class- Pakhanjur, in connection with Crime No.45/2018 against the appellants with regard to the offence mentioned herein-above, and, the matter was thereafter, committed to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge for its trial, where, the charges have been framed 4 under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of IPC and the chargers so framed have been denied by the appellants and claimed to be tried. 4. In order to bring home the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses and has exhibited 43 documents, while none was examined by the Appellants, in their defence. 5. After considering the evidence led by the prosecution, it was held by the Trial Court by placing reliance upon the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant-Sahdev Sardar before (PW/1)-Subal Haldar, (PW/2)-Gaur Vishwas, (PW/8)-Sarjindu Rai, (PW/9)-Thakur Goldar and as they have eliminated the evidence, they have been held guilty and sentenced as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved they preferred the instant appeals. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submits that the finding of the trial Court, convicting the appellants based upon the extra-judicial confession of appellant-Sahdev Sardar, which is even not supported by the prosecution witnesses is apparently contrary to law inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution has not been scanned in its proper manner and thereby erred in convicting them and therefore, convictions of their’s based upon no cogent and reliable evidence are liable to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Respondent/ State has supported the impugned judgment of conviction as passed by the trial Court. 5 8. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 9. From perusal of the record, it appears that the conviction of the appellants has been made mainly on the basis of the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant-Sahdev Sardar before Subal Haldar (PW/1), Gaur Vishwas (PW/2), Sarjindu Rai (PW/8) and Thakur Goldar (PW/9). It, however, appears from the statement of Sarjindu Rai (PW/8), particularly Para-5 of his testimony that when Appellant-Sahdev returned to his home and then he (Sarjindu Rai- PW/8) and one Thakur Goldar (PW/9) inquired from him regarding the death of said Padmavati, it was, then informed by him (Sahdev Sardar) that he killed her. It was, however, stated by him at Para 21 that whatever interrogation was done with the accused, it was done by the villagers altogether and thereafter the Police Authorities have interrogated him. Insofar as, the statement of Thakur Goldar (PW/9) is concerned, it however appears from Paragraph 7 of his testimony that he (Sahdev Sardar) has made the alleged confession when he was assaulted by one of the villagers by his feet. That apart, it appears from the testimony of Subal Haldar (PW/1), particularly, paragraphs 26 & 27, that at the time of inquiry being made by the villagers, he (Sahdev Sardar) was pressurized by 10 to 12 persons and was threatened to refer the matter to the police, if failed to speak the truth Gaur Viswas (PW/2) has, however, stated in his evidence that said Subal Haldar (PW/1) and one Sahdev Vishwas (PW/5) had inquired with the appellant- Sahdev Sardar, while Sahdev Vishwas (PW/5) has turned hostile without supporting the 6 prosecution story. There is, thus, not only the material disparity in their statements regarding the alleged confession of appellant- Sahdev Sardar, but was found to be obtained by creating immense pressure upon him. In view thereof, the alleged confession of said Sahdev Sardar cannot be held to be his voluntarily confession before them. 10. At this juncture, it is to be seen the principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court Reported in the matter of Sahadevan And Another vs State of Tamil Nadu, reported in (2012) 6 SCC, 403, wherein after analysing the various judgments of the Supreme Court, certain guidelines have been made at Paragraph 16 which reads as under:- “16. Upon a proper analysis of the aboverferred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession and 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 extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by this accused: (i) the extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful (iii) It should inspure confidence. (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. (v) For an extra-judicial confessin to be the basis of convictin, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inhereint improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.” 11.
Decision
In view of the above principles laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court, it is thus, evident that the extra-judicial confession is a week 7 piece of evidence, unless the confession is found to be voluntarily, trustworthy and reliable, else the conviction solely on the basis of the same without corroboration would not be justified. As observed herein-above, particularly, the statements of Subal Haldar (PW/1), Gaur Vishwas (PW/2), Sarjindu Rai (PW/8) and Thakur Goldar (PW/9), it is difficult to hold that the alleged confession was made by said appeallant-Sahdev Sardar voluntarily. 12. Apart from the alleged extra-judicial confession, the trial Court has taken note of the recovery of spectacle and ash of Gamcha from the appeallant-Sahdev and by taking note of recovery of dead body at the instance of both the appellants, they have been held liable for the commission of the alleged crime, however, in absence of its corroboration, the above eveidence would not be sufficient to convict the appellants. 13. In view of the aforesaid background, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District-North Baster Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.20/2018, is hereby set aside and the appellants shall be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence. 14. Compliance of this order be reported to the Registry of this Court forthwith. Sd/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Arpan