In the recent ruling of the Gauhati High Court an appeal was preferred under Section 374 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, contesting a previous judgment of conviction from October 1, 2004, issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial) in Phek, Nagaland. This judgment had convicted and sentenced the petitioner-accused under Sections 302 (punishment for murder) and 376 (punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, to life imprisonment.
In the ruling delivered by the bench comprising of Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Medhi and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Budi Habung, the court determined that a document, lacking the signature or validation by the Magistrate who recorded the petitioner’s confession, could not be considered as authentic under Section 164 (recording of confessions and statements) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Consequently, the court rejected this document as a valid confession by the petitioner, and thus it was not relied upon for the petitioner’s conviction of murder and rape.
The court found that the Trial Court’s decision lacked substantial evidence, both material and circumstantial, to support the petitioner’s conviction. Consequently, the court overturned the conviction order.
Background
On May 18, 2003, the Officer-in-Charge received a written request for the registration of the case from the complainant. The complainant stated that his wife went to the field and did not return. When her body was discovered, it was apparent that she had been raped and murdered, as she was found naked with signs of trauma. The complainant urged for necessary action to be taken.
The Trial Court reported that despite efforts to locate the case records within the court and office, they could not be found the same. Subsequently, the Ld. Trial Court was instructed to reconstruct the records, which resulted in the recovery of some documents. These documents revealed that the case had proceeded to trial, and during the questioning of the petitioner under Section 313 (power to examine accused) of the Criminal Procedure Code, he confessed to the alleged offences of murder and rape. As a result, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302 (punishment for murder) and 376 (punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Subsequently, the petitioner sought early release through a representation to the Government. However, this application was not considered. In response, the petitioner filed a petition with the Court which directed the respondent to review the petitioner’s representation. Despite this, the application was rejected on the basis that individuals convicted under Section 376 (punishment for rape) of the Indian Penal Code for rape were not eligible for early release. Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner lodged the present appeal.
Issue
The main issue to be addressed was whether the petitioner could be convicted solely on his alleged admission and an unsigned confession statement without any other corroborating evidence.
Analysis
The court observed that the accused/petitioner had confessed to the murder and the act of committing sexual intercourse after killing her (Necrophilia is not punishable under IPC).
Despite extensive efforts, only a few documents from the Trial Court’s records could be located, including the FIR copy, the petitioner’s confession statement, and the contested judgment collected from the District Jail authority.
The Court remarked that while the original records were missing, it was evident from the available documents that the investigation had been inadequately conducted from the outset. There was no evidence of the IO visiting the crime scene, creating a sketch map, recovering any incriminating materials or weapons, or collecting samples for forensic analysis.
Additionally, there was no documentation regarding any recovery made by the Investigating Officer based on the petitioner’s disclosure statement, nor was it clear whether such recoveries were made during or after custody.
The Court noted that although the complainant’s wife was found with blood and semen stains on her private parts. However, no blood samples were collected for the expert’s opinion neither post-mortem examination was conducted. These are the fundamental procedures undertaken in case of offences resulting in death. Due to a lack of other substantiating evidence, the Court found it difficult to convict the accused/petitioner for the offences of murder and rape.
The Court emphasized that the petitioner’s conviction was solely based on the confessional statement, which was only available as an unsigned photocopy of the same with the signature of the police official.
The Magistrate who recorded the confession did not authenticate it as required by Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). According to Section 164(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the provision mandates that the confession statement should be signed by the person confessing. Consequently, the Court could not consider this document as a genuine confession statement and no evidentiary value could be attached to the same thereby no reliance can be placed on the confession either.
Held
The Court decided considering the surrounding circumstances, the prosecution failed to establish the petitioner’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for offences u/s 302 and 376.
Furthermore, no circumstantial evidence was put on record against the petitioner. The Court noted that after the investigation, the petitioner was not questioned under Section 313 of the CrPC to allow him to explain the evidence against him, nor was his statement recorded. Furthermore, Section 235(2) of the CrPC mandates that if the accused is convicted, the Judge must give the accused an opportunity to speak regarding the sentence before passing judgment, but there was no record of such a hearing in this case.
Consequently, the Court determined that the Trial Court’s decision lacked substance as it lacked both material and circumstantial evidence against the petitioner. Therefore, the Court nullified and overturned the contested judgment and order.
