‘Buried alive’ murder: Patna High Court upholds Ritesh Choudhary’s conviction and convicts Deepak Jha, but acquits two others of ransom conspiracy

Saurabh Choudhary, a teenager, went missing from Katihar on 14 November 2016 after leaving home.

His father lodged a complaint the next day, initially resulting in registration of an FIR under Section 363 IPC against unknown persons.

During investigation, the prosecution relied on CCTV footage, call-detail records, ransom calls, recovery of the deceased’s T-shirt and jeans, mobile phones and SIM cards, and the alleged disclosure statement of appellant Ritesh Choudhary.

The prosecution alleged that Ritesh, Deepak Jha and other accused persons took Saurabh to Manihari, administered an intoxicant mixed in a cold drink, and buried him alive in Deepak’s agricultural land.

Pursuant to the accused persons’ identification, the police exhumed a highly decomposed body from Deepak’s land on 28 February/1 March 2017.

DNA examination linked the recovered bone sample with the blood samples of Saurabh’s parents.

The Sessions Court convicted Ritesh under Section 302 IPC and Ritesh and Deepak under Section 201 IPC.

Ritesh, Amar Chaurasia, Kunal Kumar and Deepak were also convicted under Section 120-B read with Section 364-A IPC and sentenced accordingly.

Whether the prosecution proved, beyond reasonable doubt, the charges of murder under Section 302 IPC and causing disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC against Ritesh Choudhary and Deepak Jha on the basis of circumstantial evidence?

Whether the alleged confessional/disclosure statement made by Ritesh to the police was admissible, and if so, to what extent, under Sections 25–27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?

Whether the prosecution established the charge of criminal conspiracy and ransom-related kidnapping under Section 120-B read with Section 364-A IPC against Ritesh, Amar, Kunal and Deepak?

Whether the evidence relating to the recovery of the body, DNA evidence, ransom calls, CDRs, CCTV footage and seized articles completed the chain of circumstances required for conviction?

Whether the sentence of life imprisonment imposed on Ritesh should be enhanced to the death penalty, and what sentence should be imposed on Deepak after his conviction under Section 302 IPC?

The Court applied Sections 302, 201, 364-A and 120-B of the IPC concerning murder, disappearance of evidence, kidnapping for ransom and criminal conspiracy.

Under Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act, a confession made to a police officer or while in police custody is inadmissible, except to the limited extent permitted by Section 27, namely, information distinctly relating to a fact discovered in consequence of that information.

Statements recorded during investigation are also subject to Sections 161 and 162 CrPC, while a voluntary judicial confession could have been recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

For circumstantial evidence, the Court relied on the five principles in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, requiring every circumstance to be fully established, consistent only with guilt, conclusive, excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence, and forming a complete chain.

The Court also relied on Shivaji Kisan Narwane v. State of Maharashtra for the proposition that suspicion cannot substitute proof and that missing links, unreliable circumstances and alternative hypotheses undermine a conviction.

It further referred to Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 800, holding that absence of motive is not necessarily fatal where the remaining evidence is sufficient, although complete absence of motive may support the accused.

The Court considered electronic evidence through certified CDRs and videography under the applicable electronic-evidence provisions.

The Court treated the case as one based entirely on circumstantial evidence and rejected reliance on Ritesh’s police confessional statement as substantive evidence under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act.

However, it held that the portion of the statement leading to identification of the burial place and recovery of the body was admissible under Section 27.

The Court found the circumstances against Ritesh and Deepak sufficiently established: Ritesh had a close relationship with Saurabh, had met him shortly before his disappearance, was frequently present at the informant’s house, recovered the deceased’s T-shirt and a ransom letter from a drain, possessed a SIM card allegedly used for ransom calls, and identified the place where the body was buried.

The body was recovered from Deepak’s agricultural land, and the DNA evidence connected it to Saurabh.

These circumstances, together with the evidence of exhumation and certified electronic records, were held to form a complete chain proving murder and concealment of the body against Ritesh and Deepak beyond reasonable doubt.

In contrast, the Court held that the prosecution failed to prove a common conspiracy or a specific ransom-related role against all the appellants.

No witness had seen the accused persons with Saurabh on the date of occurrence, consuming the alleged intoxicant, or jointly taking him to Deepak’s land.

The prosecution’s case regarding conspiracy and ransom substantially depended on Ritesh’s inadmissible police statement, while the investigating officer failed to conduct voice identification despite allegedly receiving recordings of ransom calls.

Although the Court described the murder as barbaric, it held that the case did not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold for capital punishment and therefore retained Ritesh’s life sentence.

Ritesh Choudhary’s convictions under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and his sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC were affirmed.

His conviction under Section 120-B read with Section 364-A IPC was set aside.

Deepak Jha’s acquittal under Section 302 IPC was reversed; he was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of ₹10,000, with a default sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment.

His conviction under Section 201 IPC was affirmed, while the conviction under Section 120-B read with Section 364-A IPC was set aside.

The appeals of Amar Kumar Chaurasia and Kunal Kumar were allowed insofar as their convictions under Section 120-B read with Section 364-A IPC were concerned.

They were acquitted, ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and their bail bonds and sureties were discharged.

The connected appeals were accordingly disposed of.